MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Harvest and density-dependent predation drive long term population decline in a northern ungulate

2021· preprint· en· W3165531323 on OpenAlexaff
Robby R. Marrotte, Brent R. Patterson, Joe M. Northrup

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Natural Resources and ForestryTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUngulatePredationEcologyDensity dependenceIntraspecific competitionPopulationTrophic levelPopulation densityPopulation cycleBiologyCompetition (biology)Abundance (ecology)Context (archaeology)Apex predatorWildlifePredatorTrophic cascadeHerbivorePopulation ecologyHabitatDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relative effect of top-down versus bottom-up forces in regulating and limiting wildlife populations is an important theme in ecology. Untangling these effects is critical for basic understanding of trophic dynamics and effective management. We examined the drivers of moose abundance by integrating two sets of observations to create one of the largest existing spatiotemporal datasets on ungulate population dynamics globally. We documented a 20% population decline. At high density, moose were regulated by intraspecific competition. Predation primarily limited population growth, except at low density, where it was regulating. Harvest was largely additive and contributed to population decline. Our results provide strong evidence for density dependent predation, highlighting that population dynamics are context dependent and vary strongly across gradients in climate, forest type and predator abundance. These results clarify longstanding questions in population ecology and highlight the complex relationships between natural and human-caused mortality in driving ungulate population dynamics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→