MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4364323280 · doi:10.1071/an22408

Shifting agriculture and a depleting aquifer: implications of row-crop farming on mule deer population performance

2023· article· en· W4364323280 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Levi J. Heffelfinger, David G. Hewitt, Randy W. DeYoung, Timothy E. Fulbright, Louis A. Harveson, Warren C. Conway, Shawn S. Gray

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Production Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKillam TrustsTexas Parks and Wildlife Department
KeywordsContext (archaeology)AgricultureIrrigationGeographyPopulationVegetation (pathology)ReproductionEnvironmental scienceAgroforestryBiologyAgronomyEcologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context Conversion of native vegetation to cropland is one of the most widespread anthropogenic landscape alterations, particularly in the Great Plains region of the United States. Mule deer occur throughout the Great Plains; however, it is the south-eastern edge of their geographical distribution, and few populations coincide with dense cropland. The rapidly depleting Ogallala Aquifer supplies irrigation to row-crops throughout the region, which will likely shift towards dryland agricultural practices in the near future. Aims We sought to understand how cropland use influences morphology, body condition indices, reproductive output, and survival of free-ranging mule deer. Methods We accumulated a multi-year, longitudinal dataset of movement and morphology for 146 mule deer in the Texas Panhandle. We linked seasonal cropland use with observed morphology, body condition metrics, and reproductive output via linear mixed-effect modelling and assessed the influence of cropland on annual survival by using Cox proportional hazard models. Key results Mule deer that did not use cropland at any time during the year exhibited morphological and nutritional indices similar to those that did; except body-fat percentage being greater for mature (=4-year-old) males that used cropland. Further, cropland use did not predict survival probability. Analyses of cropland use during seasons defined by life-stage showed context-dependent nutritional benefits. Use of cropland during winter following reproduction demonstrated an increase in young (=3-year-old) male antler size and body mass and summer crop use increased body condition for all males. Female mule deer that utilised cropland before pregnancy had increased probability of successful reproduction, demonstrating a potential capital investment strategy in reproduction. Conclusions Cropland does not limit morphology or survival of mule deer; however, additive use of row-crops can provide a nutritional buffer and enhanced reproductive output for individuals that choose to utilise it. Implications Our study demonstrates important population-level interactions with the environment for a species near the extent of their geographical distribution. Conversion of row-crop farming from aquifer depletion or climate shifts may not diminish mule deer populations, but these changes may alter specific habitat-nutritional health relationships that can influence population performance and future conservation efforts.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal Production ScienceSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207