Microtus miurus Osgood 1901
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
131. Singing Vole Microtus miurus French: Campagnol chanteur / German: Alaska-Wihimaus / Spanish: Topillo fonador Other common names: Alaska Haymouse, Alaska Vole, Toklat Vole Taxonomy. Microtus miurus Osgood, 1901, head of Bear Creek, in mountains near Hope City, Turnagain Arm, Cook Inlet, Alaska, USA. Subspecies paneaki is considered here as a synonym of nominotypical miurus. Five subspecies recognized. Subspecies and Distribution. M.m.miurusOsgood,1901—KenaiPeninsula,Alaska,USA. M.m.anderson:Rand,1945—knownonlyfromthetypelocalityinWNorthwestTerritories,Canada. M.m.cantatorR.M.Anderson,1947—WrangellMtsofAlaska,USA,andSWYukon,Canada. M.m.murieiNelson,1931—NAlaska,USA,andmostofYukon,Canada. M. m. oreas Osgood, 1907 — S Alaska, USA. Descriptive notes. Head-body 82-114 mm, tail 19-41 mm, ear 11-13 mm, hindfoot 19-21 mm; weight 22-52 g. Dorsal pelage of the Singing Vole is a mix of buff-tipped to black-tipped guard hairs and varies from pale tawny to pale buffy gray, but it is sometimes pale ocherous. Tail is darker above (dusky) and lighter buffy to ocherous below. Habitat. Tundra and taiga-tundra ecotonal habitats on well-drained ground. Singing Voles are found most often in willows (Salix, Salicaceae) along streams or near or above tree line, with their burrows often associated with rocky outcrops and large boulders that provide structural refuge from predators. Differences in microhabitats and social interactions tend to structure ways that Singing Voles use their environment. If an area has multiple microhabitats that are strongly defined, an individual will show stronger habitat affinity, but if habitats vary less and are more uniform, behavior tends to influence how space is used. Food and Feeding. Singing Voles are well known for communal hay piles of dried grass, shrubs, and forbs aboveground and cached food such as tubers underground for long winters. Caches are made primarily by immature individuals of the age class that is most likely to survive winter. Diet is primarily herbaceous plants and fungi, with noted affinity for feeding on horsetail (Equisetum arvense, Equisetaceae), cottongrass (Eriophorum angustifolium, Cyperaceae), coltsfoot (Petasitesfrigidus, Asteraceae), bearberry (Arctostaphylos rubra, Ericaceae), and willows. Because Singing Voles are highly social and tend to congregate at particularsites, they can have an intense localized impact on vegetation through selective feeding and from nutrients deposited in their feces. Breeding. Breeding occurs in June-August, and litters have 4-12 young. Seasonal patterns of spatial overlap of Singing Voles that are of reproductive age suggest promiscuous mating system and some flexibility in territoriality. Males were shown to be territorial earlier in the breeding season; females tended to be territorial later. Activity patterns. Singing Voles are active day and night and throughout the year. In winter, they are dependent on sites with adequate snow cover to avoid harsh winter conditions. Movements, Home range and Social organization. Home ranges are hypothesized to increase with body size for males and females, with males generally having larger home ranges (average 1250 m* for adult males and 450 m?* for adult females). In a study on the north slope of the Brooks Range, Alaska, population density estimates ranged from a peak of 45 ind/ha to a low of 9 ind/ha, while a different study in the same region reported a range of 50 ind/ha to 5 ind/ ha. Highly social behavior tends to concentrate populations to localized areas and facilitates maintenance of extensive burrow systems under snow. Thought to be semi-colonial, their well-documented singing appears to be a warning signal when predators are nearby. Others have suggested, however, that vocalizations are related to territoriality. Status and Conservation. Classified as Least Concern on The IUCN Red Lust. Bibliography. Batzli & Henttonen (1993), Bee & Hall (1956), Douglass (1984), Hall (1981), MacDonald & Cook (2009), Maguire & Rowe (2017), Murie (1961), Musser & Carleton (2005), Rausch (1950, 1953), Wilson & Ruff (1999), Youngman (1975).
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,023 | 0,006 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».