Modeling Cumulative Effects of Climate and Development on Moose, Wolf, and Caribou Populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Wildlife models focused solely on a single strong influence (e.g., habitat components, wildlife harvest) are limited in their ability to detect key mechanisms influencing population change. Instead, we propose integrated modeling in the context of cumulative effects assessment using multispecies population dynamics models linked to landscape‐climate simulation at large spatial and temporal scales. We developed an integrated landscape and population simulation model using ALCES Online as the model‐building platform, and the model accounted for key ecological components and relationships among moose ( Alces alces ), grey wolves ( Canis lupus nubilus ), and woodland caribou ( Rangifer tarandus caribou ) in northern Ontario, Canada. We simulated multiple scenarios over 5 decades (beginning 2020) to explore sensitivity to climate change and land use and assessed effects at multiple scales. The magnitude of effect and the relative importance of key factors (climate change, roads, and habitat) differed depending on the scale of assessment. Across the full extent of the study area (654,311km 2 [ecozonal scale]), the caribou population declined by 26% largely because of climate change and associated predator‐prey response, which led to caribou range recession in the southern part of the study area. At the caribou range scale (108,378 km 2 ), which focused on 2 herds in the northern part of the study area, climate change led to a 10% decline in the population and development led to an additional 7% decline. At the project scale (8,331 km 2 ), which was focused more narrowly on the landscape surrounding 4 proposed mines, the caribou population declined by 29% largely in response to simulated development. Given that observed caribou population dynamics were sensitive to the cumulative effects of climate change, land use, interspecific interactions, and scale, insights from the analysis might not emerge under a less complex model. Our integrated modeling framework provides valuable support for broader regional assessments, including estimation of risk to caribou and Indigenous food security, and for developing and evaluating potential caribou recovery strategies. © 2021 The Authors. The Journal of Wildlife Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".