Temporal dynamics of polar bear (<i>Ursus maritimus</i>) pregnancy rates in western Hudson Bay: influence of mass, age and timing of first breeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reproduction is the most energetically costly undertaking for female mammals and for capital breeders. Understanding factors that influence individual body condition and reproductive success is essential to understanding population demography. We investigated long-term trends in pregnancy rates to assess the impacts of individual and environmental factors on polar bear reproduction. Pregnancy status was determined from serum progesterone levels in blood collected from free-ranging polar bears captured on shore in late summer to early autumn in western Hudson Bay, Canada. We analysed 541 blood samples for progesterone level from 441 individuals from 1991 to 2021 and compared to data from 1982 to 1990 (354 individuals from 476 occasions). We used a generalized linear model to investigate individual and environmental factors that could influence pregnancy rates. The percent of solitary females that were pregnant declined significantly over time and between time periods from 85% in 1982-90 to 73% in 1991-2021. Interannual variation in pregnancy was high, ranging from 46 to 100%. Pregnancy rates were influenced by mass and age, with higher pregnancy rates for heavier females and those >4 and <24 years old. The percentage of pregnant 4-year-old females declined from 82% in 1982-90 to 55% in 1991-2021. The mass of pregnant females declined over time and the lightest pregnant female known to have produced cubs weighed 196 kg in the autumn. We suggest further research is needed to understand mechanisms resulting in pregnancy rate variation, which may be related to previous reproductive status and recent litter loss.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".