MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153606166 · doi:10.1002/jwmg.385

Influence of forest structure on the abundance of snowshoe hares in western Wyoming

2012· article· en· W2153606166 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nathan Berg, Eric M. Gese, John R. Squires, Lise M. Aubry

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
KeywordsSnowshoe harePinus contortaSeral communityEcologyAbundance (ecology)GeographyAbies lasiocarpaHabitatForestryPredationBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Snowshoe hares ( Lepus americanus ) are a primary prey species for Canada lynx ( Lynx canadensis ) in western North America. Lynx management plans require knowledge of potential prey distribution and abundance in the western United States. Whether even‐aged regenerating forests or multi‐storied forests contain more snowshoe hares is currently unknown. During 2006–2008, we estimated snowshoe hare density in 3 classes of 30–70‐year‐old lodgepole pine ( Pinus contorta ) and 4 classes of late seral multi‐storied forest with a spruce ( Picea engelmannii )‐fir ( Abies lasiocarpa ) component in the Bridger‐Teton National Forest, Wyoming. We recorded physiographic variables and forest structure characteristics to understand how these factors influence abundance of snowshoe hares. In many instances, snowshoe hares were more abundant in late seral multi‐storied forests than regenerating even‐aged forests. Forest attributes predicting hare abundance were often more prevalent in multi‐storied forests. Late seral multi‐storied forests with a spruce–fir component and dense horizontal cover, as well as 30–70‐year‐old lodgepole pine with high stem density, were disproportionately influential in explaining snowshoe hare densities in western Wyoming. In order to promote improved habitat conditions for snowshoe hares in this region, management agencies should consider shifting their focus towards maintaining, enhancing, and promoting multi‐storied forests with dense horizontal cover, as well as developing 30–70‐year‐old lodgepole pine stands with high stem density that structurally mimic multi‐storied forests. © 2012 The Wildlife Society.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207