MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3032111564 · doi:10.1111/acv.12593

Immigration does not offset harvest mortality in groups of a cooperatively breeding carnivore

2020· article· en· W3032111564 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sarah B. Bassing, David E. Ausband, Michael S. Mitchell, Michael K. Schwartz, J. Joshua Nowak, Greg Hale, Lisette P. Waits

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Conservation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsAlberta Environment and Protected Areas
FundersU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceShikar Safari Club International FoundationIdaho Department of Fish and GameLeonard X. Bosack and Bette M. Kruger Charitable FoundationAlberta Environment and ParksWilburforce FoundationCoypu FoundationBernice Barbour FoundationAlberta Conservation Association
KeywordsCarnivoreBiological dispersalCanisImmigrationBiologyEcologyDemographyGeographyPopulationPredation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The effects of harvest on cooperatively breeding species are often more complex than simply subtracting the number of animals that died from the group count. Changes in demographic rates, particularly dispersal, could offset some effects of harvest mortality in groups but this is rarely explored with cooperative breeders. We asked whether a cooperatively breeding species known for long‐distance dispersal could compensate for the effect of harvest mortality on density by adopting immigrants into the group. We used genetic samples to estimate the minimum density of gray wolves ( Canis lupus ) and proportion of immigrants in groups in the northern US Rocky Mountains after an annual harvest regime was initiated and in the Canadian Rocky Mountains where wolves were managed consistently under an annual harvest regime. We tested whether immigration (1) compensated, (2) partially compensated or (3) did not compensate numerically for harvest mortality in groups and hypothesized immigration would increase with increasing harvest intensity. Density of wolves in groups declined after harvest was initiated whereas immigration into groups was consistently low and did not change with harvest in the US study area. Immigration into groups was similarly low and density even lower in the Canadian study area compared to the US study area. Our results indicate immigration did not compensate for harvest mortality in groups in two separate populations of a cooperatively breeding carnivore. We hypothesize the social structure of wolf groups may limit the potentially compensatory response of immigration in some populations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.619

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal ConservationSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207