Synchrony in the snowshoe hare (<i>Lepus americanus</i>) cycle in northwestern North America, 1970–2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus Erxleben, 1777) fluctuate in 9–10 year cycles throughout much of their North American range. Regional synchrony has been assumed to be the rule for these cycles, so that hare populations in virtually all of northwestern North America have been assumed to be in phase. We gathered qualitative and quantitative data on hare numbers and fur returns of Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis Kerr, 1792) in the boreal forest regions of Alaska, Yukon, Northwest Territories, and northern British Columbia to describe synchrony in the time window of 1970–2012. Broad-scale synchrony in lynx fur returns was strong from 1970 to about 1995 but then seemed to break down in different parts of this region. Hare populations at 20 sites in Alaska, the Yukon, and Northwest Territories showed peak populations that lagged by 1–4 years during the 1990s and 2000s cycles. The simplest hypothesis to explain these patterns of asynchrony in hare cycles is the movement of predators from British Columbia north into the Yukon and then east into the Northwest Territories and west into Alaska. A traveling wave of these cycles is clearly seen in the lynx fur returns from western Canada and Alaska from 1970 to 2009. One consequence of a failure of synchrony is that hare predators like Canada lynx and Great-horned Owls (Bubo virginianus (Gmelin, 1788)) can move from one adjacent area to the next within this region and survive long enough to prolong low densities in hare populations that have declined earlier.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".