Protection status, human disturbance, snow cover and trapping drive density of a declining wolverine population in the Canadian Rocky Mountains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Protected areas are important in species conservation, but high rates of human-caused mortality outside their borders and increasing popularity for recreation can negatively affect wildlife populations. We quantified wolverine (Gulo gulo) population trends from 2011 to 2020 in > 14,000 km2 protected and non-protected habitat in southwestern Canada. We conducted wolverine and multi-species surveys using non-invasive DNA and remote camera-based methods. We developed Bayesian integrated models combining spatial capture-recapture data of marked and unmarked individuals with occupancy data. Wolverine density and occupancy declined by 39%, with an annual population growth rate of 0.925. Density within protected areas was 3 times higher than outside and declined between 2011 (3.6 wolverines/1000 km2) and 2020 (2.1 wolverines/1000 km2). Wolverine density and detection probability increased with snow cover and decreased near development. Detection probability also decreased with human recreational activity. The annual harvest rate of ≥ 13% was above the maximum sustainable rate. We conclude that humans negatively affected the population through direct mortality, sub-lethal effects and habitat impacts. Our study exemplifies the need to monitor population trends for species at risk—within and between protected areas—as steep declines can occur unnoticed if key conservation concerns are not identified and addressed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".