Seasonal demography of a cyclic lemming population in the<scp>C</scp>anadian<scp>A</scp>rctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. The causes of cyclical fluctuations in animal populations remain a controversial topic in ecology. Food limitation and predation are two leading hypotheses to explain small mammal population dynamics in northern environments. We documented the seasonal timing of the decline phases and demographic parameters (survival and reproduction) associated with population changes in lemmings, allowing us to evaluate some predictions from these two hypotheses. 2. We studied the demography of brown lemmings (Lemmus trimucronatus), a species showing 3- to 4-year population cycles in the Canadian Arctic, by combining capture-mark-recapture analysis of summer live-trapping with monitoring of winter nests over a 10-year period. We also examined the effects of some weather variables on survival. 3. We found that population declines after a peak occurred between the summer and winter period and not during the winter. During the summer, population growth was driven by change in survival, but not in fecundity or proportion of juveniles, whereas in winter population growth was driven by changes in late summer and winter reproduction. 4. We did not find evidence for direct density dependence on summer demographic parameters, though our analysis was constrained by the paucity of data during the low phase. Body mass, however, was highest in peak years. 5. Weather effects were detected only in early summer when lemming survival was positively related to snow depth at the onset of melt but negatively related to rainfall. 6. Our results show that high mortality causes population declines of lemmings during summer and fall, which suggests that predation is sufficient to cause population crashes, whereas high winter fecundity is the primary factor leading to population irruptions. The positive association between snow depth and early summer survival may be due to the protective cover offered by snow against predators. It is still unclear why reproduction remains low during the low phase.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".