MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3160998229 · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109128

Incorporating climate change in a harvest risk assessment for polar bears Ursus maritimus in Southern Hudson Bay

2021· article· en· W3160998229 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Eric V. Regehr, Markus Dyck, Samuel A. Iverson, David S. Lee, Nicholas J. Lunn, Joseph M. Northrup, Marie-Claude Richer, Guillaume Szor, Michael C. Runge

Bibliographic record

VenueBiological Conservation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsMinistère des Forêts, de la Faune et des ParcsGovernment of QuebecMinistry of Natural Resources and ForestryTrent UniversityGovernment of NunavutUniversity of AlbertaEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of Washington
KeywordsUrsus maritimusClimate changeSea iceGeographyBayArcticPopulationEnvironmental scienceWildlife managementWildlifeEcologyFisheryBiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arctic marine mammals are harvested by Indigenous people for subsistence and are socially and culturally important. For ice-dependent species like the polar bear Ursus maritimus , management and conservation require understanding interactions between harvest and sea-ice loss due to climate change. We developed a demographic model to evaluate harvest risk for polar bears in Southern Hudson Bay, Canada, where the annual ice-free season has increased by approximately one month in recent decades. The model was based on the theta-logistic equation and allowed for density-dependent changes (through carrying capacity [ K ]) and density-independent changes (through population growth rate [ r ]). Model parameters were estimated using a Bayesian Monte Carlo method that included capture-recapture, aerial survey, and harvest data. Harvest management followed a state-dependent approach under which new estimates of abundance were used to update the harvest level every five years. Under a middle-of-the-road environmental scenario that assumed K and r would decline in proportion to projected sea-ice declines, annual removal of 0.02–0.03 of females resulted in a 0.8 probability of maintaining subpopulation abundance above maximum net productivity level for three polar bear generations (~34 years), our primary criterion for sustainability. Under more pessimistic and optimistic environmental scenarios, comparable female harvest rates were 0.01 and 0.055, respectively. Our coupled modeling-management framework can be used to inform tradeoffs between protection and sustainable use for wildlife populations experiencing habitat loss.

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)0.001
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 score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiological ConservationSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207