EFFECTS OF FOOD AND DEN-SITE SUPPLEMENTATION ON POPULATIONS OF GLAUCOMYS SABRINUS AND TAMIASCIURUS DOUGLASII
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined effects of food and den site supplementation on population dynamics of Glaucomys sabrinus and Tamiasciurus douglasii in mature second-growth forests in British Columbia, Canada. We tested the hypothesis that populations of these squirrels were limited by abundance of food, not den sites. Populations were sampled intensively from June 1996 to March 1999 on controls and grids supplemented with food, food and nest boxes, and nest boxes. Analysis of variance revealed no differences in movement, abundance, recruitment, body mass of males, and percentage of males breeding among treatments for G. sabrinus or T. douglasii. Survival of G. sabrinus was not significantly different during pretreatment, but was significantly higher on grids supplemented with food during posttreatment. Occupancy rate of nest boxes in stands supplemented with nest boxes and food was 6- to 12-fold higher than in stands supplemented with nest boxes only. G. sabrinus occupied the majority of the nest boxes. We concluded that G. sabrinus used nest boxes readily but their populations were not limited by availability of den sites; availability of food appeared to have a significant effect on their populations. T. douglasii was not limited by availability of food or den sites during our study.
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".