MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386019876 · doi:10.1002/eap.2911

Logging, linear features, and human infrastructure shape the spatial dynamics of wolf predation on an ungulate neonate

2023· article· en· W4386019876 on OpenAlexafffund
Sean Johnson‐Bice, Thomas D. Gable, Austin T. Homkes, Steve K. Windels, Joseph K. Bump, John G. Bruggink

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Applications · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNational Park ServiceNorthern Michigan UniversityMinnesota Environment and Natural Resources Trust FundUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Minnesota
KeywordsUngulateOdocoileusPredationTaigaEcologyGeographyWildlifeDisturbance (geology)CanisBorealLoggingForageHabitatBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Humans are increasingly recognized as important players in predator-prey dynamics by modifying landscapes. This trend has been well-documented for large mammal communities in North American boreal forests: logging creates early seral forests that benefit ungulates such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), while the combination of infrastructure development and resource extraction practices generate linear features that allow predators such as wolves (Canis lupus) to travel and forage more efficiently throughout the landscape. Disturbances from recreational activities and residential development are other major sources of human activity in boreal ecosystems that may further alter wolf-ungulate dynamics. Here, we evaluate the influence that several major types of anthropogenic landscape modifications (timber harvest, linear features, and residential infrastructure) have on where and how wolves hunt ungulate neonates in a southern boreal forest ecosystem in Minnesota, USA. We demonstrate that each major anthropogenic disturbance significantly influences wolf predation of white-tailed deer fawns (n = 427 kill sites). In contrast with the "human shield hypothesis" that posits prey use human-modified areas as refuge, wolves killed fawns closer to residential buildings than expected based on spatial availability. Fawns were also killed within recently-logged areas more than expected. Concealment cover was higher at kill sites than random sites, suggesting wolves use senses other than vision, probably olfaction, to detect hidden fawns. Wolves showed strong selection for hunting along linear features, and kill sites were also closer to linear features than expected. We hypothesize that linear features facilitated wolf predation on fawns by allowing wolves to travel efficiently among high-quality prey patches (recently logged areas, near buildings), and also increase encounter rates with olfactory cues that allow them to detect hidden fawns. These findings provide novel insight into the strategies predators use to hunt ungulate neonates and the many ways human activity alters wolf-ungulate neonate predator-prey dynamics, which have remained elusive due to the challenges of locating sites where predators kill small prey. Our research has important management and conservation implications for wolf-ungulate systems subjected to anthropogenic pressures, particularly as the range of overlap between wolves and deer expands and appears to be altering food web dynamics in boreal ecosystems.

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)0.000
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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.773

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcological ApplicationsSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207