Use of Residual Forest by Snowshoe Hare in a Clear-cut Boreal Landscape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The short-term negative impacts on Lepus americanus (Snowshoe Hare) of logging activities in boreal forest are widely recognized, and conservation efforts are being taken now in designing residual forest stands to maintain use of logged landscapes by hares. This study evaluated the effectiveness of three types of residual stands in maintaining hares during the high phase of hare density cycle in Picea mariana (Black Spruce) forest of eastern Canada. Residual forest stands sampled were upland strips (60 m wide, 250–950 m long, mesic conditions), riparian strips (100 m wide, 250–950 m long, along a permanent stream), and residual blocks (200–300 m wide, 20–50 ha). Control stands were undisturbed forest. All stands were considered mature (56–97 years old). Pellet and browse surveys were conducted during spring 1998 and 1999. Hare abundance indices were significantly lower (1999), or tended to be lower (1998), in strips than in blocks, although habitat composition and structure of the treatments did not differ from control stands. Pellet presence was positively related to vertical cover. In 1998, foraging activity (browsing) was significantly higher in control and block landscapes than in strip landscapes; browsing was positively related to availability of ericaceous and deciduous twigs. In 1998, twenty Snowshoe Hares were radio-tracked in residual stands to monitor their summer home ranges, fidelity to capture sites and to type of residual stand, use of clear-cuts and uncut forest, and daily movements. There was a clear trend towards lower fidelity to strips than to blocks, and summer home ranges and daily movements (>330 m) tended to be larger in strips compared to those in blocks. Our study suggests that up to 5 years after logging, residual forest blocks appeared to be more suitable habitat in summer for Snowshoe Hare than were 60-m-wide strips.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".