Owl winter irruptions as an indicator of small mammal population cycles in the boreal forest of eastern North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contrary to what is observed in Fennoscandia, it seems to be widely accepted that small mammals do not exhibit multi‐annual population cycles in the boreal forest of North America. However, in the last thirty years, irruptions of vole predators such as owls have been reported by ornithologists south of the North American boreal forest. While such southerly irruptions have been associated in Fennoscandia with periods of low abundance of small mammals within their usual distribution range, their possible cyclic nature and their relationships to fluctuations in vole densities at northern latitudes has not yet been demonstrated in North America. With information collected from existing data‐bases, we examined the presence of cycles in small mammals and their main avian predators by using temporal autocorrelation analyses. Winter invasions of boreal owls ( Aegolius funereus ) were periodic, with a 4‐yr cycle in Québec. Populations of one species of small mammal, the red‐backed vole ( Clethrionomys gapperi ), fluctuated periodically in boreal forests of Québec (north to 48°N). Boreal owls show invasion cycles which correspond to years of low density of red‐backed voles, the main food item for this owl species. In addition, winter observations of northern hawk owls ( Surnia ulula ) and great gray owls ( Strix nebulosa ) south of their usual range increased in years of low density of red‐backed voles. Our results suggest that a 4‐yr population cycle exists in the eastern boreal forest of North America for voles and owls, which is very similar to the one observed in Fennoscandia.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".