Habitat selection and the scale of ghostly coexistence among Arctic rodents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Competition between coexisting species existing near their stable equilibrium can be obscured if they occupy separate habitats. Theories of habitat selection promise an ability to reveal the underlying ghost of competition by using isodars to infer the behavioural map of habitat selection. We tested the theory with two years of data on abundance and habitat preference by three Arctic rodent species living at low density along a gradient of wet to dry tundra on Herschel Island in Canada's western Arctic. Generalist brown lemmings exhibited a constant partial preference toward wet tundra whereas specialist collared lemmings and voles occupied the driest and wettest zones respectively. Although both lemming species compete for habitats elsewhere in the Canadian Arctic, isodar analyses suggest that the three species occupy wet and dry habitats independently of one another on Herschel Island. Competition at this large scale may be hidden at low densities, however, if the wet‐dry dichotomy is too coarse. Analyses at a finer subdivision of habitat revealed that these species coexist by using different microhabitats. Collared lemmings shifted their niche towards even drier habitat as the abundance of brown lemmings increased. We were thus able to reveal the ghost of competition lurking at large scales through a more refined analysis at smaller scales of density‐dependent habitat use.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".