MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3203447578 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0253635

Changes in hunting season regulations (1870s–2019) reduce harvest exposure on greater and Gunnison sage-grouse

2021· article· en· W3203447578 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Jonathan B. Dinkins, Courtney J. Duchardt, Jacob D. Hennig, Jeffrey L. Beck

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCalifornia Department of Fish and WildlifeMinistry of EnvironmentMinistry of Environment - SaskatchewanAlberta Environment and ParksWyoming Wildlife and Natural Resource TrustNevada Department of WildlifeWashington Department of Fish and WildlifeUtah Division of Wildlife ResourcesIdaho Department of Fish and GameColorado Parks and WildlifeOregon State University
KeywordsHunting seasonGeographyWildlifePopulationThreatened speciesEcologyWildlife managementRange (aeronautics)HabitatBiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hunter harvest is a potential factor contributing to population declines of sage-grouse (Centrocercus spp.). As a result, wildlife agencies throughout western North America have set increasingly more conservative harvest regulations over the past 25 years to reduce or eliminate hunter success and concomitant numbers of harvested greater (C. urophasianus) and Gunnison (C. minimus) sage-grouse. Sage-grouse hunting has varied widely over time and space, which has made a comprehensive summary of hunting management challenging. We compiled data on harvest regulations among 11 western U.S. states and 2 Canadian provinces from 1870-2019 to create a timeline representative of hunting regulations. We compared annual harvest boundaries and area-weighted average hunting regulations, 1995-2018, relative to administrative boundaries and areas of high probability of sage-grouse occupation. We also summarized estimated numbers of birds harvested and hunters afield, 1995-2018, across both species' ranges. From 1995-2018, there was a 30% reduction in administrative harvest boundaries across the greater sage-grouse range compared to a 16.6% reduction in area open to harvest within 8 km from active leks. Temporary closures occurred in response to wildfires, disease outbreaks, low population numbers, and two research projects; whereas, permanent closures primarily occurred in small populations and areas on the periphery of the species distribution. Similarly, area-weighted possession limits and season length for greater sage-grouse decreased 52.6% and 61.0%, respectively, while season start date stayed relatively stable (mean start date ~259 [mid-September]). In contrast, hunting of the now federally-threatened Gunnison sage-grouse ended after 1999. While restrictions in harvest regulations were large in area, closures near areas of high greater sage-grouse occupancy were relatively smaller with the same trend for Gunnison sage-grouse until hunting ceased. For greater sage-grouse, most states reduced bag and possession limits and appeared to adhere to recommendations for later and shorter hunting seasons, reducing potential for additive mortality.

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 score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207