Habitat preference of Canada lynx through a cycle in snowshoe hare abundance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assessed habitat preference of a lynx (Lynx canadensis) population through 8 years of a snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) cycle. Seventy-four percent of our southern Yukon study area was approximately 30-year-old regenerating forest resulting from a large wildfire. The study area was not trapped and lynx density was very high compared with other populations in North America. Contrary to our prediction, there was no discernable shift in habitat preference through the hare cycle; however, our habitat types were coarsely mapped and our radiolocations relatively inaccurate. Lynx may have altered their habitat preferences at finer scales (for patches <2 ha). Lynx showed strong preference for regenerating habitats over mature white spruce (Picea glauca) and alpine–subalpine. Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) dominated regenerating stands were preferred over spruce–willow (Salix spp.) stands of equal age. Riparian willow stands were also preferred over mature spruce forest and alpine. Lynx used riparian willow stands more in winter, but we detected no other shifts in habitat preference between snow-free and winter periods. We did not detect any difference in habitat preference between sexes. Independent juveniles made greater use of mature forest and perhaps riparian willow than adults, but no other difference in preference between the two age groups was noted. Lynx preference for regenerating habitat over mature forest suggests that burns will benefit lynx, especially if the regenerating community is pine dominated. Logging will only likely provide similar benefits if a dense pine understory results, which is unlikely in intensively managed stands. The suppression of forest fires in recent decades may have contributed to the decline of lynx numbers in the south of their range.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".