MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4247177156 · doi:10.26686/wgtn.12469337.v1

Divergent population trends following the cessation of legal grizzly bear hunting in southwestern British Columbia, Canada

2020· preprint· en· W4247177156 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Michelle L. McLellan, BN McLellan, R Sollmann, CT Lamb, CD Apps, Heiko U. Wittmer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaMinistry of Forests
FundersHabitat Conservation Trust FoundationMinistry of EnvironmentVictoria UniversityVictoria University of Wellington
KeywordsUrsusPopulationGrizzly BearsAllee effectPopulation growthCarnivorePopulation densityMark and recaptureGeographyVital ratesEcologyPopulation sizeHabitatPopulation declineDemographyBiologyPredation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

© 2019 Elsevier Ltd We conducted DNA capture-recapture monitoring of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) from 5 to 17 years after hunting was stopped in two adjacent but genetically distinct populations in southwestern British Columbia, Canada. We used spatial capture-recapture and non-spatial Pradel robust design modelling to estimate population density, trends, and the demographic components of population change for each population. The larger population had 21.5 bears/1000 km 2 and was growing (λ Pradel = 1.02 ± 0.02 SE; λ secr = 1.01 ± 4.6 × 10 −5 SE) following the cessation of hunting. The adjacent smaller population had 6.3 bears/1000 km 2 and was likely declining (λ Pradel = 0.95 ± 0.03 SE; λ secr = 0.98 ± 0.02 SE). Estimates of apparent survival and apparent recruitment indicated that lower recruitment was the dominant factor limiting population growth in the smaller population. Factors limiting reproductive rates and population density could include poor habitat quality, particularly the abundance of high-energy foods, genetic Allee effects due to a long period of population isolation, or demographic effects affecting infanticide rates. The cessation of hunting was insufficient to promote population recovery for the low density, isolated population. Our research highlights the importance of considering mortality thresholds in addition to small population effects and habitat quality when recovering large carnivore populations.

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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→