MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405020030 · doi:10.1002/jwmg.22671

Wolf density and predation patterns in the Canadian High Arctic

2024· article· en· W4405020030 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Morgan Anderson, H. Dean Cluff, L. David Mech, Daniel R. MacNulty

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and biodiversity studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SudburyGovernment of Nunavut
FundersEurostarsGovernment of NunavutBritish Broadcasting CorporationNational Geographic Society
KeywordsPredationArcticGeographyEcologyThe arcticFisheryBiologyOceanographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Arctic wolf (Canis lupus arctos) is a predator of muskoxen (Ovibos moschatus), Arctic hares (Lepus arcticus), and endangered Peary caribou (Rangifer tarandus pearyi) in the Canadian High Arctic. Although Arctic wolves potentially affect the dynamics of muskoxen and Peary caribou populations, knowledge about their abundance, distribution, and predation patterns is limited. Inuit and Inuvialuit communities value these species for sociocultural and subsistence reasons, and community members are concerned about how interactions among these species and their environment may change in a warming, unpredictable Arctic. We conducted a study from 2014–2018 of wolves in the rolling tundra of central Ellesmere Island (Fosheim Peninsula) and eastern Axel Heiberg Island. This area supported relatively high densities of muskoxen and Arctic hares, and previously supported Peary caribou, although caribou were mostly absent in the area during our study. We deployed global positioning system (GPS) radio‐collars on 10 adult wolves in 6 packs on Ellesmere and Axel Heiberg islands to describe wolf density and predation patterns. Wolves were neither nomadic nor migratory; they remained on territories year‐round, with summer densities of 2.5–8.0 adult wolves/1,000 km2 and 3.7–10.4 wolves/1,000 km2 including pups. Based on a ground search of 312 of 868 location clusters over a 340‐day period, wolves in a focal study pack killed approximately 0.12 muskoxen/day, equivalent to a predation rate of 5.5–17.0% of the estimated muskox population (older than 10 months old). This predation rate is likely sustainable given that calves and yearlings rather than reproductive adults comprised most documented kills, and that muskox populations can increase at rates up to 20%. The kill rate for this pack also implied a biomass intake deficit of 0.82–1.63 kg/wolf/day that could have been offset by each wolf consuming 115–228 Arctic hares annually. The decline of Peary caribou in the study area precluded any assessment of wolf predation influences on their population, but annual telemetry data confirming the year‐round presence of a wolf–ungulate–hare system with relatively high wolf densities suggests that apparent competition could present a challenge to Peary caribou recovery 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 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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicEcology and biodiversity studiesFrench-language works237,207