What do caribou eat? A review of the literature on caribou diet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historically, the study of caribou and reindeer (Rangifer tarandus (Linnaeus, 1788)) diet has been specific to herds and few comprehensive circumpolar analyses of Rangifer diet exist. As a result, certain diet items may play an outsized role in the caribou diet Zeitgeist, e.g., lichen. We challenge this notion and test the relevant importance of various diet items within the context of prevailing hypotheses. We provide a systematic overview of 30 caribou studies reporting caribou diet and test biologically relevant hypotheses about spatial and temporal dietary variation. Our results indicate that in the winter caribou primarily consume lichen, but in warmer seasons and when primary productivity is lower, caribou primarily consume graminoids and other vascular plants. In more productive environments, where caribou have more competitors and predators, consumption of lichen increase. Overall, our description of caribou diet reveals that it is highly variable, but in circumstances where caribou can consume vascular plants, then they will. As climate change affects Boreal and Arctic ecosystems, the type and volume of food consumed by caribou have become an increasingly important focus for conservation and management of caribou.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".