MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2280050138 · doi:10.14288/1.0098635

Reproduction, juvenile survival and movements of snowshoe hares at a cyclic population peak

2010· article· en· W2280050138 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mark O’Donoghue

Notice bibliographique

RevueOpen Collections · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésReproductionJuvenilePopulationBiologyDemographySnowshoe hareEcologySociology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) populations were provided with supplemental food on two study grids in the southwest Yukon to examine the effects of food on reproduction and juvenile growth. Timing of parturition, pregnancy rates, litter sizes, male breeding condition, and juvenile growth rates were measured on the food grids and on two control grids during two summers at a cyclic peak in hare numbers. The main effects of food addition were to increase hare densities 2.1- to 2.7-fold, to advance the timing of breeding by about a week in one year, and to increase the mean size of third litter 30% in one year relative to the controls. There were no significant differences in pregnancy rates, litter sizes in five of six litter groups, length of male breeding season, or juvenile growth rates between hare populations on the food and control grids. Third litter stillborn rates were higher, and third litter juveniles grew slightly more slowly on food grids relative to those on controls, possibly because of higher densities. This study suggests that food is not a proximate factor limiting hare reproduction and early juvenile growth at the observed peak hare densities. Juvenile snowshoe hares were radio-tagged at birth on one food addition grid and one control grid, to determine early juvenile survival rates, the effects of the food addition on these rates, and the proximate causes of mortality. Indices of survival were estimated by live-trapping on these grids, and on one additional set of grids. Thirty-day survival rates were 0.46, 0.15, and 0.43 for the first, second and third litters of the year, respectively. There were no differences between early juvenile survival on the food addition and control grids in any of the litter groups. The main proximate cause of juvenile mortality was predation by small mammalian predators, the most important being red squirrels and arctic ground squirrels. Seventy percent of early juvenile mortality occurred during the first 5 days after birth. Survival of littermates was not independent; Utters tended to all live or die as a unit more often than expected by chance. Fifty-one percent of litters had no known survivors after 14 days of age. Individual survival rates were negatively related to litter size, positively related to body size at birth, and litter size was negatively correlated with body size, suggesting trade-offs as predicted by life history theory. The number of recruits per litter, and the probability of total litter failure, did not differ significantly over the observed range of litter sizes. The radio-tagged juveniles were also followed to examine pre-dispersal movements, maternal-juvenile interactions, and timing of natal dispersal. Hare Utters stayed at their nest sites for an average of 2.7 days, after which each individual hare usually found a separate hiding place from its littermates. Juvenile hares ranged progressively farther from their nest sites as they grew, up to the age of 20 days. From 20 to 35 days of age, leverets stayed approximately 75 m from their nest sites, after which time their movements again increased. Observations at nest sites suggested that adult female hares nursed their litters only once per day, shortly after twilight. Some females aggressively defended their newborn litters before the juveniles left the nests. Natal dispersal of juvenile hares began shortly after weaning at 24-28 days of age. Many third litter juveniles were nursed for a longer period of at least 29-40 days. Juvenile males may disperse sooner and travel farther than females from their natal ranges.

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,007
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,014

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,013
Tête enseignante GPT0,242
Écart entre enseignants0,229 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations4
Publié2010
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueOpen CollectionsMême sujetWildlife Ecology and ConservationTravaux en français237 207