Shared predators and indirect trophic interactions: lemming cycles and arctic‐nesting geese
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary We investigated the hypothesis that cyclic lemming populations indirectly affect arctic‐nesting greater snow geese ( Anser caerulescens atlanticus L.) through the behavioural and numerical responses of shared predators. The study took place on Bylot Island in the Canadian High Arctic during two lemming cycles. We recorded changes in foraging behaviour and activity rate of arctic foxes, parasitic jaegers, glaucous gulls and common ravens in a goose colony during one lemming cycle and we monitored denning activity of foxes for 7 years. We also evaluated the total response of predators (i.e. number of eggs depredated). Arctic foxes were more successful in attacking lemmings than goose nests because predators were constrained by goose nest defence. Predators increased their foraging effort on goose eggs following a lemming decline. Activity rates in the goose colony varied 3·5‐fold in arctic foxes and 4·8‐fold in parasitic jaegers, and were highest 2 and 3 years after the lemming peak, respectively. The breeding output of arctic foxes appeared to be driven primarily by lemming numbers. Predators consumed 19–88% of the annual goose nesting production and egg predation intensity varied 2·7‐fold, being lowest during peak lemming years. Arctic foxes and parasitic jaegers were the key predators generating marked annual variation in egg predation. Our study provides strong support for short‐term, positive indirect effects and long‐term, negative indirect effects of lemming populations on arctic‐nesting geese. The outcome between these opposing indirect effects is probably an apparent competition between rodents and many terrestrial arctic‐nesting birds.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it