Silviculture and Wildlife: Snowshoe Hare Abundance across a Successional Sequence of Natural and Intensively Managed Forests
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We tested the hypotheses H 1 that relative habitat use by snowshoe hares ( Lepus americanus ) would have a bimodal distribution with the highest abundance in young lodgepole pine ( Pinus contorta ) stands (both managed and unmanaged), minimal numbers in mature forests, and moderate abundance in old-growth forests and H 2 that habitat use would increase in response to enhanced stand attributes from PCT (precommercial thinning) and fertilization treatments. Habitat use was measured by counts of fecal pellets of hares from 1999 to 2003 in forest stands in south-central British Columbia, Canada. Our results did not support the bimodal distribution of hares among coniferous stands, such that old-growth stands, at least in our region, do not provide sufficient habitat for hare populations. High-density (5000 to 13000 stems/ha) unthinned young lodgepole pine stands provide optimum habitat for hares in terms of overstory and stand structure. Thinned and fertilized stands may also provide habitat, particularly at densities ≤1000 stems/ha, and over time as understory conifers develop. Managed stands provided habitat for hares at the same level as mature stands, at 6–10 years after PCT. Maintenance of a range of managed and unmanaged stands in a landscape mosaic would be ideal for integration of silvicultural and wildlife management goals.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it