POPULATION DYNAMICS OF SNOWSHOE HARES IN RELATION TO FURBEARER HARVEST
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied the population dynamics of snowshoe hare in 2 areas of the southern boreal forest of eastern North America that differed with respect to furbearer harvest. We predicted that hare density and survival would be higher in the area with trapping (TRAP) than in the protected area (PROT) as a response to differential predator abundance. Indices of predator density suggested that predation risk was slightly higher in PROT than TRAP, particularly during the first year of our 3-year study. Predators killed 86% of the radiomarked hares (body mass >900 g) that died during the study (n = 71). Hare density was higher in TRAP (56 ± 4 hares/100 ha) than PROT (30 ± 5 hares/100 ha). Furthermore, hare densities were relatively stable in both areas between 1998 and 2000. Additional data from the previous 2 years in TRAP indicated that hare density had remained relatively unchanged for 5 years. These findings were in agreement with regional trends in hunter harvests which were low and stable throughout the 1990s. Annual survival of radiomarked hares (>900 g) was high in both areas but decreased during the study. Survival exhibited a sex*area interaction, and was lower for females in TRAP than PROT (46% vs. 76%) but higher for males in TRAP than PROT (64% vs. 37%); hare survival did not differ when sexes were combined. Differential survival of older hares could therefore not explain the difference in hare densities in the 2 areas. Gestation rates were similar in both areas, but the numbers of young hares (300–900 g) entering the population and young: female ratios were higher in TRAP than PROT. Survival of young hares during their first summer was variable between time periods, and tended to be higher in PROT than TRAP. Thus, it is likely that improved survival of juveniles (<300 g) soon after birth explains the increased hare density in TRAP. Study results show that managers cannot assume the existence of cyclicity in all hare populations, and must be aware that complex trophic interactions can generate unexpected responses to perturbations.
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".