English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Lessard et al. (2005) errors in “Case 2: Large mammal interactions in northern boreal forest” when assuming that “caribou are more vulnerable to predation than moose”. James et al. (2004), in a study of northern Alberta woodland caribou, notes that “caribou were not killed in proportion to their availability” and found that individual woodland caribou were approximately one-tenth as likely to be subject to predation compared to individual moose, supporting the Hayes et al. (2000) observation that “wolves did not show a strong switching response away from moose as the ratio of caribou to moose increased in winter”. The assumption of increased predation risk is contrary to the literature and results in an order of magnitude error being introduced into the model results.

Response to: &#8216;Should Ecosystem Management Involve Active Control of Species Abundances?&#8217;

Response to: ‘Should Ecosystem Management Involve Active Control of Species Abundances?’