Surviving winter: Food, but not habitat structure, prevents crashes in cyclic vole populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Vole population cycles are a major force driving boreal ecosystem dynamics in northwestern Eurasia. However, our understanding of the impact of winter on these cycles is increasingly uncertain, especially because climate change is affecting snow predictability, quality, and abundance. We examined the role of winter weather and snow conditions, the lack of suitable habitat structure during freeze‐thaw periods, and the lack of sufficient food as potential causes for winter population crashes. We live‐trapped bank voles Myodes glareolus on 26 plots (0.36 ha each) at two different elevations (representing different winter conditions) in southeast Norway in the winters 2013/2014 and 2014/2015. We carried out two manipulations: supplementing six plots with food to eliminate food limitation and six plots with straw to improve habitat structure and limit the effect of icing in the subnivean space. In the first winter, all bank voles survived well on all plots, whereas in the second winter voles on almost all plots went extinct except for those receiving supplemental food. Survival was highest on the feeding treatment in both winters, whereas improving habitat structure had no effect. We conclude that food limitation was a key factor in causing winter population crashes.
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".