INFLUENCE OF RELATEDNESS ON SNOWSHOE HARE SPACING BEHAVIOR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predation and food are dominant forces regulating snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) population density, yet manipulations of these factors have not proven sufficient to explain all aspects of hare population dynamics. Social interactions among hares have often been dismissed as unimportant in population regulation, but the mechanisms and consequences of such interactions have not been well studied. In this study, we examined one aspect of social behavior in snowshoe hares that has been hypothesized to be important in the spacing behavior of other species of small mammals: interactions among related individuals. We sampled 68 hares on two 7.3-ha grids in the southwest Yukon Territory during a cyclic peak phase of population density and used livetrapping and radiotelemetry to quantify spacing behavior. Hares were genotyped at 7 microsatellite DNA loci, and relatedness (r) among individuals was estimated and correlated with spacing. Average relatedness was low on both grids (≤0) because very few close kin were present. Hares were not more or less likely to associate with kin than they were with nonkin. The results were similar when males, females, adults, and juveniles were considered together or separately and are thus consistent with a lack of sex-biased dispersal in snowshoe hares. Kin are not clustered in snowshoe hare populations, thus interactions among kin do not likely have a strong influence on hare spacing behavior. This study supports the idea that spacing behavior has little influence on hare population dynamics, at least during the peak phase of the cycle.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".