Vegetation productivity summarized by the Dynamic Habitat Indices explains broad-scale patterns of moose abundance across Russia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying the factors that determine habitat suitability and hence patterns of wildlife abundances over broad spatial scales is important for conservation. Ecosystem productivity is a key aspect of habitat suitability, especially for large mammals. Our goals were to a) explain patterns of moose (Alces alces) abundance across Russia based on remotely sensed measures of vegetation productivity using Dynamic Habitat Indices (DHIs), and b) examine if patterns of moose abundance and productivity differed before and after the collapse of the Soviet Union. We evaluated the utility of the DHIs using multiple regression models predicting moose abundance by administrative regions. Univariate models of the individual DHIs had lower predictive power than all three combined. The three DHIs together with environmental variables, explained 79% of variation in moose abundance. Interestingly, the predictive power of the models was highest for the 1980s, and decreased for the two subsequent decades. We speculate that the lower predictive power of our environmental variables in the later decades may be due to increasing human influence on moose densities. Overall, we were able to explain patterns in moose abundance in Russia well, which can inform wildlife managers on the long-term patterns of habitat use of the species.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".