Woodland Caribou demographic data and range boundaries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As global climate change progresses, wildlife management will benefit from knowledge of demographic responses to climatic variation, particularly for species already endangered by other stressors. In Canada, climate change is expected to increasingly impact populations of threatened woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) and much focus has been placed on how a warming climate has potentially facilitated the northward expansion of apparent competitors and novel predators. Climate change, however, may also exert more direct effects on caribou populations that are not mediated by predation. These effects include meteorological changes that influence resource availability and energy expenditure. Research on other ungulates suggests that climatic variation may have minimal impact on low-density populations such as woodland caribou because per-capita resources may remain sufficient even in “bad” years. We evaluated this prediction using demographic data from 21 populations in western Canada that were monitored for various intervals between 1994 and 2015. We specifically assessed whether juvenile recruitment and adult female survival were correlated with annual variation in meteorological metrics and plant phenology. Against expectations, we found that both vital rates appeared to be influenced by annual climatic variation. Juvenile recruitment was primarily correlated with variation in phenological conditions in the year prior to birth. Adult female survival was more strongly correlated with meteorological conditions and declined during colder, more variable winters. These responses may be influenced by the life history of woodland caribou, which reside in low-productivity refugia where small climatic changes may result in changes to resources that are sufficient to elicit strong demographic effects. Across all models, explained variation in vital rates was low, suggesting that other factors had greater influence on caribou demography. Nonetheless, given the declining trajectories of many woodland caribou populations, our results highlight the increased relevance of recovery actions when adverse climatic conditions are likely to negatively affect caribou demography.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".