Impacts of spruce budworm defoliation on the habitat of woodland caribou, moose, and their main predators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest logging has contributed to the decline of several woodland caribou populations by causing the fragmentation of mature coniferous stands. Such habitat alterations could be worsened by spruce budworm (SBW) outbreaks. Using 6201 vegetation plots from provincial inventories conducted after the last SBW outbreak (1968-1992) in boreal forests of Québec (Canada), we investigated the influence of SBW-caused tree defoliation and mortality on understory vegetation layers relevant to woodland caribou and its main predators. We found a positive association between severe outbreaks and the cover of most groups of understory plant species, especially in stands that were dominated by balsam fir before the outbreak, where a high canopy openness particularly benefited relatively fast-growing deciduous plants. Such increases in early successional vegetation could provide high-quality forage for moose, which is likely to promote higher wolf densities and increase predation pressure on caribou. SBW outbreaks may thus negatively affect woodland caribou by increasing predation risk, the main factor limiting caribou populations in managed forests. For the near future, we recommend updating the criteria used to define critical caribou habitat to consider the potential impacts of spruce budworm defoliation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".