Experimental manipulation of predation and food supply of arctic ground squirrels in the boreal forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined whether arctic ground squirrel (Spermophilus parryii plesius) populations in northern boreal forest in the Yukon Territory, Canada, were limited by food, predators, or a combination of both, during the decline and low phases of a snowshoe hare cycle. From 1990 to 1995, populations were monitored in large-scale (1 km2) experimental manipulations. Squirrels were studied on eight 9-ha grids: four unmanipulated control grids, two food-supplemented grids, a predator-exclosure grid, and a predator-exclosure + food-supplemented grid. Population density was measured on all grids by livetrapping and active-season survival was measured using radiotelemetry. Population densities were lowest in 1992 and 1993 (2 years after the snowshoe hare population decline). Rates of population change were negative from 1991 to 1993, when predation pressure was most intense after the snowshoe hare decline, and positive from 1993 to 1995, when hares and predators were at low densities. Predation accounted for 125 of 130 mortalities (96%) of radio-collared squirrels. Adult survival was significantly lower in 1992 and 1993 than in 1994 and 1995, and was a strong predictor of annual rates of population change in arctic ground squirrels. Treatments were ranked as follows in their effect on adult survival: predator exclosure + food-supplemented > food-supplemented > predator exclosure > controls. Juvenile survival was lowest in 1992, and food addition and predator removal separately increased juvenile survival. On average, predator exclusion increased population densities twofold, food supplementation increased densities fourfold, and food supplementation and predator removal together increased densities 10-fold. We conclude that food and predation interact to limit arctic ground squirrel populations in the boreal forest during the decline and low phases of the snowshoe hare cycle. The snowshoe hare cycle may indirectly create a lagged secondary fluctuation in arctic ground squirrel populations through shared cyclic predators.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".