ArticleLandscape ecology2026
Are forestry clearcuts ecological traps for caribou?
Article in Landscape ecology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Context: Woodland caribou ( Objectives: We hypothesized clearcuts could exacerbate predation risk by functioning as ecological traps in low-productivity landscapes, drawing caribou during summer when nutritional demands are high. We predicted caribou would select clearcuts as or more strongly than other landcovers, with clearcuts providing comparable or greater forage but imposing fitness costs. Methods: Using step-selection functions, we analyzed habitat selection for 71 GPS-collared caribou in west-central British Columbia, Canada. We assessed forage availability through vegetation surveys at 56 paired clearcut and uncut plots, and inferred predation risk from wolf ( Results: Caribou selected regenerating (≤ 25 years old) clearcuts as or more strongly than other landcovers, whereas older clearcuts (26-39 years old) were used neutrally or avoided. Compared to paired uncut areas, forage was greater in regenerating clearcuts, but not in older clearcuts. Predation risk was elevated in clearcuts and near roads, with higher activity of wolves (clearcuts), coyotes (roads), and black bears (both). Conclusions: We provided partial evidence that regenerating clearcuts may function as ecological traps during summer in low-productivity landscapes. Elevated predation risk does not necessarily equate to reduced fitness, and alternative mechanisms (e.g., risk-sensitive foraging) require further investigation. Regardless, selection of high-risk clearcuts by caribou represents an understudied pathway potentially contributing to population declines. We recommend limiting new clearcutting and improving protection of caribou summer ranges. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10980-026-02411-1.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.