MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Summer Habitat Use by Snowshoe Hare and Mountain Cottontail at Their Southern Zone of Sympatry

2006· article· en· W2213897088 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jason L. Malaney, Jennifer K. Frey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNew Mexico Department of Game and Fish
KeywordsSnowshoe harePinus contortaAbies lasiocarpaEcologyRange (aeronautics)GeographyBlack sprucePicea engelmanniiBorealTaigaHabitatSubalpine forestForestryMontane ecologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) is a habitat specialist with a broad geographic range associated with boreal and subalpine forests in North America (Hall 1981, Hodges 1999a,b). It reaches southern range limits in the Southern Rocky Mountains in northern New Mexico, USA. Here, scant and mostly anecdotal evidence suggests that it is restricted to high-elevation, subalpine conifer forests dominated by Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii) and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa; Findley et al. 1975, DeVelice et al. 1986, Pase and Brown 1994). These southwestern forests lack several plant species, including lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), jackpine (Pinus banksiana), black spruce (Picea mariana), birch (Betula spp.), and balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera), that, in more northern latitudes, are considered important habitat elements for snowshoe hare, especially in terms of cover (Bittner and Rongstad 1982, Litvaitis et al. 1985, DeVelice et al. 1986, Ferron and Ouellet 1992, Bryant et al. 1994, Pase and Brown 1994, Moir and Fletcher 1996). Methods for managing subalpine forests for snowshoe hare in the Southern Rocky Mountains are particularly important because of a current effort to reintroduce Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), which is a specialized predator of snowshoe hare (Hodges 1999a,b, Colorado Division of Wildlife 2002). Another leporid, the mountain cottontail (Sylvilagus nuttallii), occurs throughout the intermountain region of western North America, also reaching the southern extent of its range in the American Southwest (Hall 1981). Throughout this broad zone of sympatry, the two leporids segregate in ecological distribution with no reports of syntopy (Bittner and Rongstad 1982, Chapman et al. 1982, Chapman and Wilner 1986). The mountain cottontail typically is associated with lower-elevation sagebrush (Artemisia spp.)–dominated habitats (Orr 1940, Chapman 1975, 1999, Chapman et al. 1982). However, it is a habitat generalist and at more southern latitudes it also occurs in higher-elevation habitats including juniper (Juniperus spp.) and pinon pine (Pinus spp.) woodlands and middle-elevation montane conifer forests, which are dominated by ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), white fir (Abies concolor), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and blue spruce (Picea pungens; Bailey 1931, Durrant 1952, Findley et al. 1975, Hoffmeister 1986, Fitzgerald et al. 1994, Frey and Yates 1996). Mountain cottontails also occur in subalpine conifer forest in areas of the Southwest and Southern Rocky Mountains where snowshoe hare are absent, such as the White Mountains in eastcentral Arizona and the Pikes Peak massive in central Colorado (Warren 1910, Armstrong 1972, Hoffmeister 1986). Findley et al. (1975) reported a specimen each of mountain cottontail and snowshoe hare from Goose Lake, Taos County, New Mexico, USA. This locality is at 3,542 m elevation, which is in the subalpine conifer forest zone. These records suggested that less ecological segregation between snowshoe hare and mountain cottontail might occur in the American Southwest, including the potential for local syntopy. Thus, the purpose of our study was to assess habitat use of snowshoe hare and mountain cottontail in subalpine conifer forests at their southern point of sympatry in the Southern Rocky Mountains.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.182 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207