Diurnal Habitat Relationships of Canada Lynx in an Intensively Managed Private Forest Landscape in Northern Maine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In March 2000, Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) were listed as a federally threatened species in 14 states at the southern periphery of their range, where lynx habitat is disjunct and snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) densities are low. Forest conditions vary across lynx range; thus, region-specific data on the habitat requirements of lynx are needed. We studied lynx in northern Maine, USA, from 1999 to 2004 to assess quality and potential for forests in Maine to sustain lynx populations. We trapped and radiocollared 43 lynx (21 M, 22 F) during this period and evaluated diurnal habitat selection by 16 resident adult lynx (9 M, 7 F) monitored in 2002. We evaluated lynx selection of 8 habitats at multiple spatial scales, and related lynx habitat selection to snowshoe hare abundance. Lynx preferred conifer-dominated sapling stands, which supported the highest hare densities on our study site (x̄ = 2.4 hares/ha), over all other habitats. The habitats where lynx placed their home ranges did not differ by sex. However, within their home ranges, males not only preferred conifer-dominated sapling stands, but also preferred mature conifer, whereas females singularly preferred conifer-dominated sapling stands. Approximately one-third of Maine's spruce–fir forest and nearly 50% of our study area was regenerating conifer or mixed-sapling forest, resulting from a disease event and intensive forest management (e.g., large clear-cuts). Our findings suggest that current habitat conditions in Maine are better than western montane regions and approach conditions in boreal forests during periods of hare abundance. We recommend that forest landowners maintain a mosaic of different-aged conifer stands to ensure a component of regenerating conifer-dominated forest on the landscape.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".