RED SQUIRRELS (TAMIASCIURUS HUDSONICUS) FEEDING ON SPRUCE BARK BEETLES (DENDROCTONUS RUFIPENNIS): ENERGETIC AND ECOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report the novel occurrence of North American red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) feeding on spruce bark beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis) larvae, and consider the energetic and ecological implications. Although a bark beetle outbreak was 1st noted at our study site in 1994, significant feeding on them by red squirrels was not observed until 2002, after which there was significant increase in the prevalence of autumn beetle foraging by squirrels into 2003. This increase corresponded with a decrease in spruce seed availability, the squirrels' preferred food source. Spruce bark beetles currently represent an important food source, with 73% of monitored squirrels engaged in beetle feeding in autumn 2003, providing 20% of daily energy requirements. In autumn 2002 and 2003, the density of beetle-infested trees on a squirrel's territory was a significant predictor of whether it fed on beetle larvae but not the proportion of its foraging bouts involving bark beetles. Feeding on larval spruce bark beetles by red squirrels represents a short-term solution to a climate-mediated beetle outbreak that will ultimately reduce local spruce seed production and habitat suitability for red squirrels.
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".