Browse site selection by snowshoe hares: effects of food supply and predation risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
If snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus Erxleben, 1777) change their foraging behaviour through the population cycle as food supply and predation pressure change, these shifts could contribute to their population cycles by affecting survival and reproduction. We examined whether hares change their foraging movements and browse site selection in response to manipulations of food addition and predator reduction during a cyclic low phase. Snowshoe hares on sites with supplemental rabbit chow ate fewer species per site and preferred to browse in slightly denser cover than unfed hares. Differences in foraging behaviour were linked to season and site characteristics. Snowshoe hares moved similar distances and spent similar amounts of time per browse site in the presence and absence of terrestrial predators. Hares protected from predators used slightly more browse sites in thick cover, but this pattern was partially due to differences in availability. The absence of terrestrial predators had little effect on snowshoe hare foraging behaviour; instead, browse distribution patterns explained most of the behavioural variation. Thus, the predicted patterns in response to the manipulations did not occur, and our results challenge the idea that changes in snowshoe hare foraging behaviour contribute to their cyclic dynamics.
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".