Spatiotemporal influences of climate and humans on muskox range dynamics over multiple millennia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Processes leading to range contractions and population declines of Arctic megafauna during the late Pleistocene and early Holocene are uncertain, with intense debate on the roles of human hunting, climatic change, and their synergy. Obstacles to a resolution have included an overreliance on correlative rather than process-explicit approaches for inferring drivers of distributional and demographic change. Here, we disentangle the ecological mechanisms and threats that were integral in the decline and extinction of the muskox (Ovibos moschatus) in Eurasia and in its expansion in North America using process-explicit macroecological models. The approach integrates modern and fossil occurrence records, ancient DNA, spatiotemporal reconstructions of past climatic change, species-specific population ecology, and the growth and spread of anatomically modern humans. We show that accurately reconstructing inferences of past demographic changes for muskox over the last 21,000 years require high dispersal abilities, large maximum densities, and a small Allee effect. Analyses of validated process-explicit projections indicate that climatic change was the primary driver of muskox distribution shifts and demographic changes across its previously extensive (circumpolar) range, with populations responding negatively to rapid warming events. Regional analyses show that the range collapse and extinction of the muskox in Europe (~13,000 years ago) was likely caused by humans operating in synergy with climatic warming. In Canada and Greenland, climatic change and human activities probably combined to drive recent population sizes. The impact of past climatic change on the range and extinction dynamics of muskox during the Pleistocene-Holocene transition signals a vulnerability of this species to future increased warming. By better establishing the ecological processes that shaped the distribution of the muskox through space and time, we show that process-explicit macroecological models have important applications for the future conservation and management of this iconic species in a warming Arctic.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".