Differential sex-related winter energetics in free-ranging snowshoe hares (<i>Lepus americanus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animals spend considerable time and energy acquiring food to meet their metabolic requirements, but if energetic or fitness costs are substantive, such as during winter, then some individuals may limit daily energy expenditure by reducing foraging duration. To date, the prevalence and magnitude of such compensatory foraging responses are poorly known. We examined energy balance compensation in free-ranging snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus Erxleben, 1777) via a food supplementation experiment to determine whether individuals reduced their daily energy expenditure (DEE) and activity periods in response to increased food availability. Overall, food supplementation had no effect on diel activity patterns, although males had higher DEE compared with females. During early and mid-winter, hares did not alter their activity periods in response to food supplementation, but during late winter, when natural food availability declined, food-supplemented females (but not males) were ∼11% less active compared with controls. Natural food likely was sufficient and could have been acquired at relatively low energetic cost, but because males likely have higher DEE due to mating behavior whereas females may limit their activity (and thus DEE) to reduce predation risk, we conclude that gender-specific life-history demands can over-ride predicted responses to supplemental food when baseline food abundance is adequate.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".