Hibernation Site Selection by Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnakes (Sistrurus catenatus catenatus) near Their Northern Range Limit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hibernation sites at higher latitudes must protect snakes from colder conditions for longer periods of time. Because fewer locations are likely to be suitable, hibernation site availability may restrict the northern distribution of snakes. We considered overwinter mortality, hibernation site fidelity, and the abundance of suitable hibernation sites based on surface features to assess whether Massasauga Rattlesnakes are likely to be limited by hibernation site availability on the Bruce Peninsula, Ontario, Canada. We used three years of radio telemetry to locate 46 hibernation sites of 32 individual snakes. Snakes hibernated individually in old root systems, rodent burrows, and rock crevices in forested areas. Hibernation sites could be differentiated from forested areas generally available to snakes but not from locations with holes and crevices in the immediate vicinity of hibernation sites. Few snakes hibernated in the same location in consecutive years, although most (>70%) hibernated within 100 m of their previous location. Overwinter mortality over three years (23%) was similar to mortality during the active season (21%). Our results suggest that Massasauga Rattlesnakes may be limited by the availability of suitable hibernation sites, but sites of similar quality to those used by overwintering snakes are locally abundant. The location of hibernation sites within forests could not be predicted reliably based on surface features. Therefore, efforts to conserve habitat for this threatened species should consider all forested areas on the Bruce Peninsula as potential hibernation habitat.
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 | 0.000 | 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".