MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3185548664 · doi:10.1002/jwmg.22099

Mothers' Movements: Shifts in Calving Area Selection by Partially Migratory Elk

2021· article· en· W3185548664 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jodi Berg, Jody R. Reimer, Peter Smolko, Holger Bohm, Mark Hebblewhite, Evelyn H. Merrill

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsForagingIce calvingForagePredationUngulateWildlifeGeographyHabitatPopulationEcologyReproductive successCervus elaphusNational parkBiologyDemographyLactationPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Loss of migratory behavior or shifts in migratory ranges are growing concerns to wildlife managers. How ungulates prioritize safety from predators at the expense of high‐quality foraging opportunities during calving may be key to understanding these shifts and long‐term reproductive success. We compared trade‐offs in selection for forage and predation risk by elk ( Cervus canadensis ) following 3 migratory tactics (western and eastern migration and resident) during 2 time periods in a declining (by almost 70% from 2002–2016), partially migratory elk population adjacent to Banff National Park in Alberta, Canada. We hypothesized that regardless of migratory tactic, maternal elk would show stronger trade‐offs between high‐quality foraging associated with higher predation risk and forage resources of lower‐quality yet lower risk on calving ranges than on ranges used during summer because of vulnerability of their offspring. Additionally, we hypothesized these trade‐offs would occur at high (2002–2006) and low (2013–2016) elk population sizes. We used a machine‐learning algorithm to predict dates of parturition based on global positioning system (GPS) movements of elk equipped with vaginal implants ( n = 60) and predictions were within 1.43 ± 0.85 (SE) days of the known date. We applied the model to an additional 58 GPS‐collared elk without vaginal implants. Based on changes in localized movements, we defined calving areas as the 26 days post‐parturition and compared habitat characteristics of calving areas to 10 similar‐sized areas centered on random locations during summer for the same individual in a latent selection framework. Across the 2 time periods, parturition occurred from 8 May–11 July with median parturition dates differing among migratory tactics and residents shifting towards an earlier parturition date in the later period. All elk, regardless of migratory tactic and time period, selected calving areas with greater forage resources than were available on areas used during summer, with no evidence for greater selection of areas that reduced predation risk at the expense of higher‐quality foraging. Calving season selection for areas with abundant forage exposed western migrants to high risk of bear ( Ursus spp.) predation, residents to high risk of wolf ( Canis lupus ) predation, and eastern migrants to low risk of bear and wolf predation. Patterns in exposure to predation risk during calving between migratory tactics were consistent with the recent decline in western migrants and increase in eastern migrants, implying that conditions on calving areas contributed to observed changes in the number of elk following these tactics. © 2021 The Wildlife Society.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.202 · 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.

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

Citations25
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207