North American barren-ground caribou cycles are driven by logistic trophic dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used the Qamanirjuaq, Bathurst, and George River barren-ground caribou sine cycles to project numbers (Nt), calculate subpopulation annual growth rates (λt) and calculate logistic carrying capacity (Kt). Maximum annual growth rate was 1.196 and maximum annual rate of decline was 0.836 for the harvested Qamanirjuaq subpopulation sine cycle. However, the maximum annual subpopulation growth rates for both the harvested Bathurst and George River subpopulation sine cycles were greater than the biologically possible maximum intrinsic rate of increase during the eruption phase. Subpopulation numbers for Qamanirjuaq, Bathurst and George River barren-ground caribou subpopulations all closely tracked carrying capacity for one complete cycle with lag times between Nt and Kt ranging from < 1-year to approximately 5-years. The short lag times observed indicates that Qamanirjuaq, Bathurst and George River barren-ground caribou subpopulations closely track their range condition. Range condition drives barren-ground caribou subpopulation cycles, but range condition also cycles; presumably because annual barren-ground caribou grazing rates are proportional to barren-ground caribou numbers and eventually exceed range annual growth rates. Immigration from adjacent subpopulations plays a role in the initiation and acceleration of the eruption period in some subpopulations, but not all of them. Numerical synchrony and asynchrony with adjacent subpopulation cycles can affect the timing of the eruption phase through mediation of immigration. Once subpopulation range has recovered, the rapid recovery of subpopulation numbers suggest that subpopulations are not restricted by other factors. The regularity and symmetry of both the increase and decline phases of these cycles suggests that the barren-ground caribou cycle is both stable and resilient. Continuation of barren-ground caribou cycles at historical levels is likely if habitat conservation measures are adopted so that annual migration patterns are not disrupted, summer and winter range remain undisturbed and common-sense harvest management policies are adopted when caribou are at low numbers.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".