Data from: Harvest and density-dependent predation drive long-term population decline in a northern ungulate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relative effect of top-down versus bottom-up forces in regulating and limiting wildlife populations is an important theme in ecology. Untangling these effects is critical for a basic understanding of trophic dynamics and effective management. We examined the drivers of moose (Alces alces) population growth by integrating two independent sources of observations within a hierarchical Bayesian population model. This analysis used one of the largest existing spatiotemporal datasets on ungulate population dynamics globally. We documented a 20% population decline over the period examined. Moose population growth was negatively density-dependent. Although the mechanisms producing density-dependent suppression of population growth could not be determined, the relatively low densities at which moose populations were documented suggests it could be due primarily to density-dependent predation. Predation primarily limited population growth, except at low density, where it was regulating. Harvest appeared to be largely additive and contributed to population declines. Our results, highlight how population dynamics are context dependent and vary strongly across gradients in climate, forest type, and predator abundance. These results help clarify long-standing questions in population ecology and highlight the complex relationships between natural and human-caused mortality in driving ungulate population dynamics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
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".