The role of predation in the decline and extirpation of woodland caribou
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To select appropriate recovery strategies for endangered populations, we must understand the dynamics of small populations and distinguish between the possible causes that drive such populations to low numbers. It has been suggested that the pattern of population decline may be inversely density-dependent with population growth rates decreasing as populations become very small; however, empirical evidence of such accelerated declines at low densities is rare. Here we analyzed the pattern of decline of a threatened population of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in British Columbia, Canada. Using information on the instantaneous rate of increase relative to caribou density in suitable winter foraging habitat, as well as on pregnancy rates and on causes and temporal distribution of mortalities from a sample of 349 radiocollared animals from 15 subpopulations, we tested 3 hypothesized causes of decline: (a) food regulation caused by loss of suitable winter foraging habitat, (b) predation-sensitive foraging caused by loss of suitable winter foraging habitat and (c) predation with caribou being secondary prey. Population sizes of caribou subpopulations ranged from <5 to >500 individuals. Our results showed that the rates of increase of these subpopulations varied from -0.1871 to 0.0496 with smaller subpopulations declining faster than larger subpopulations. Rates of increase were positively related to the density of caribou in suitable winter foraging habitat. Pregnancy rates averaged 92.4% ±2.24 and did not differ among subpopulations. In addition, we found predation to be the primary cause of mortality in 11 of 13 subpopulations with known causes of mortality and predation predominantly occurred during summer. These results are consistent with predictions that caribou subpopulations are declining as a consequence of increased predation. Recovery of these woodland caribou will thus require a multispecies perspective and an appreciation for the influence of inverse density dependence on population trajectories. © Springer-Verlag 2005.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".