Northern range boundary dynamics of southern flying squirrels: evidence of an energetic bottleneck
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We undertook a large-scale survey of the distribution of northern, Glaucomys sabrinus (Shaw, 1801), and southern, Glaucomys volans (L., 1758), flying squirrels in Ontario, Canada. Livetrapping was conducted along a north–south transect spanning about 500 km, from 42.5°N to 47.2°N. During 2002–2004, we conducted 42 971 trap-nights at 26 sites and captured 232 northern and 538 southern flying squirrels. During 2002 and 2003, southern flying squirrels occurred >200 km farther north than we expected. However, the range of this species appeared to contract to the south by about 240 km after the winter of 2004. Weather and food data suggested that cold temperatures during January and February 2004 combined with a failed mast crop in the autumn of 2003 resulted in an energetic bottleneck and subsequent population crash. We speculate that prior to 2004 southern flying squirrels had expanded their geographic range in response to recent climate warming. In particular, the nine winters between 1994 and 2004 were relatively warm. By measuring the range expansion over this warm interval, we were able to estimate a rate of spread of 22 km per year, and a diffusion coefficient of 6.9 × 107 m2 per generation.
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".