MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366549628 · doi:10.1002/ece3.9976

Mule deer fawn recruitment dynamics in an energy disturbed landscape

2023· article· en· W4366549628 on OpenAlexaff
Kilian J. Murphy, David R. Roberts, William F. Jensen, Scott E. Nielsen, Sandra K. Johnson, Brian M. Hosek, Bruce A. Stillings, Jesse L. Kolar, Mark S. Boyce, Simone Ciuti

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology and Evolution · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsPetro Geotech (Canada)University of AlbertaGovernment of AlbertaMinistry of Environment
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOdocoileusWildlifePredatorEcologyDisturbance (geology)PredationHabitatAbiotic componentPopulationBiologyPopulation densityGeographyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Wildlife population dynamics are modulated by abiotic and biotic factors, typically climate, resource availability, density‐dependent effects, and predator–prey interactions. Understanding whether and how human‐caused disturbances shape these ecological processes is helpful for the conservation and management of wildlife and their habitats within increasingly human‐dominated landscapes. However, many jurisdictions lack either long‐term longitudinal data on wildlife populations or measures of the interplay between human‐mediated disturbance, climate, and predator density. Here, we use a 50‐year time series (1962–2012) on mule deer ( Odocoileus hemionus ) demographics, seasonal weather, predator density, and oil and gas development patterns from the North Dakota Badlands, USA, to investigate long‐term effects of landscape‐level disturbance on mule deer fawn fall recruitment, which has declined precipitously over the last number of decades. Mule deer fawn fall recruitment in this study represents the number of fawns per female (fawn:female ratio) that survive through the summer to October. We used this fawn recruitment index to evaluate the composite effects of interannual extreme weather conditions, energy development, and predator density. We found that density‐dependent effects and harsh seasonal weather were the main drivers of fawn fall recruitment in the North Dakota Badlands. These effects were further shaped by the interaction between harsh seasonal weather and predator density (i.e., lower fawn fall recruitment when harsh weather was combined with higher predator density). Additionally, we found that fawn fall recruitment was modulated by interactions between seasonal weather and energy development (i.e., lower fawn fall recruitment when harsh weather was combined with higher density of active oil and gas wells). Interestingly, we found that the combined effect of predator density and energy development was not interactive but rather additive. Our analysis demonstrates how energy development may modulate fluctuations in mule deer fawn fall recruitment concurrent with biotic (density‐dependency, habitat, predation, woody vegetation encroachment) and abiotic (harsh seasonal weather) drivers. Density‐dependent patterns emerge, presumably due to limited quality habitat, being the primary factor influencing fall fawn recruitment in mule deer. Secondarily, stochastic weather events periodically cause dramatic declines in recruitment. And finally, the additive effects of human disturbance and predation can induce fluctuations in fawn fall recruitment. Here we make the case for using long‐term datasets for setting long‐term wildlife management goals that decision makers and the public can understand and support.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology and EvolutionSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207