POPULATION DYNAMICS OF SNOWSHOE HARES IN RELATION TO FURBEARER HARVEST
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
We studied the population dynamics of snowshoe hare in 2 areas of the southern boreal forest of eastern North America that differed with respect to furbearer harvest. We predicted that hare density and survival would be higher in the area with trapping (TRAP) than in the protected area (PROT) as a response to differential predator abundance. Indices of predator density suggested that predation risk was slightly higher in PROT than TRAP, particularly during the first year of our 3-year study. Predators killed 86% of the radiomarked hares (body mass >900 g) that died during the study (n = 71). Hare density was higher in TRAP (56 ± 4 hares/100 ha) than PROT (30 ± 5 hares/100 ha). Furthermore, hare densities were relatively stable in both areas between 1998 and 2000. Additional data from the previous 2 years in TRAP indicated that hare density had remained relatively unchanged for 5 years. These findings were in agreement with regional trends in hunter harvests which were low and stable throughout the 1990s. Annual survival of radiomarked hares (>900 g) was high in both areas but decreased during the study. Survival exhibited a sex*area interaction, and was lower for females in TRAP than PROT (46% vs. 76%) but higher for males in TRAP than PROT (64% vs. 37%); hare survival did not differ when sexes were combined. Differential survival of older hares could therefore not explain the difference in hare densities in the 2 areas. Gestation rates were similar in both areas, but the numbers of young hares (300–900 g) entering the population and young: female ratios were higher in TRAP than PROT. Survival of young hares during their first summer was variable between time periods, and tended to be higher in PROT than TRAP. Thus, it is likely that improved survival of juveniles (<300 g) soon after birth explains the increased hare density in TRAP. Study results show that managers cannot assume the existence of cyclicity in all hare populations, and must be aware that complex trophic interactions can generate unexpected responses to perturbations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».