A Burning Question: What are the Implications of Forest Fires for Woodland Caribou?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Canada's federal recovery strategy for boreal woodland caribou ( Rangifer tarandus caribou ) classifies areas burned by forest fire as disturbed habitat. This assignment of fire as a disturbance has potential economic and social implications across Canada, and influences plans and actions to achieve caribou conservation and recovery. Previous researchers have reported caribou avoid burned habitat, but these studies did not typically consider unburned residual patches within fire perimeters. Additionally, the implications of burned habitat on individual caribou survival is unclear. We examined resource selection by boreal woodland caribou of burns, and unburned residual patches, using global positioning system (GPS) locations for 201 caribou across 6 caribou populations in Alberta, Canada. We also examined if burned habitat affected the survival of adult female caribou. Caribou avoided burns and unburned residual patches. Increased use of burned habitats, however, did not lower the survival of adult caribou. Collectively, these results provide evidence to support current assertions that burns, and the embedded unburned residual patches are not preferred caribou habitat and increase our understanding of the implications of forest fire for caribou vital rates. Our investigation offers important information about the role of forest fire in caribou ecology and enhances the identification of disturbed habitat under recovery strategy guidelines to effectively address caribou population declines. © 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 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 | 0.000 | 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".