Integrating movement behaviours for intra-specific conservation: The caribou case
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conserving diversity below the species level is vital to maintaining species' adaptive potential. However, defining intra-specific units for conservation is complex due to the often-continuous nature of differentiation, and thus multiple lines of evidence are needed to adequately capture adaptive differences. Caribou ( Rangifer tarandus caribou ) exemplify this challenge, exhibiting diverse behavioural, genetic, and morphological variation throughout their range, with several populations facing extirpation. We used a long-term telemetry dataset of 302 caribou across the species' range in western Canada to assess individual variation in movement behaviours. This included behaviours hypothesized to be of adaptive significance, such as migration, home range size and shape, and inferred predator avoidance tactics. Gaussian finite mixture models were then used to identify intra-specific behavioural clusters which may be evolutionarily significant, followed by Random Forest models to discern behaviours driving differentiation between clusters. We identified six distinct clusters based on individual variation in behaviour. Differentiation between clusters was significantly influenced by selection for canopy cover (%) at calving events, home range size and shape, migratory behaviour, and geographic location. Since behavioural variation arises from genetic, environmental, and social factors, our results highlight the value of incorporating trait variation into the assessment of evolutionarily significant units for conservation. We advocate for the consideration of behavioural variation, as it offers valuable insights into adaptive differences. This approach holds promise for informing conservation efforts, not only for caribou, but other terrestrial species at risk given the importance of maintaining genetic and phenotypic diversity. • Defining intra-specific units is vital for conservation of threatened species. • Caribou can be grouped based on individual variation in behaviours. • Six unique behavioural clusters were identified across Western Canada. • Movements may delineate intra-specific units in terrestrial animals.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".