Coping with differences in snow cover: the impact on the condition, physiology and fitness of an arctic hibernator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Earth's climate is changing at an unprecedented rate and, as ecologists, we are challenged with the difficult task of predicting how individuals and populations will respond to climate-induced changes to local and global ecosystems. Although we are beginning to understand some of the responses to changing seasonality, the physiological mechanisms that may drive these responses remain unknown. Using long-term data comparing two nearby populations (<20 km apart) of free-living arctic ground squirrels in northern Alaska, we have previously shown that the timing of spring snowmelt greatly influences their phenology of hibernation and reproduction in a population and site-specific manner. Here, we integrate these site-specific phenologies with body condition, stress physiology, reproductive success and juvenile recruitment to understand phenotypic selection in the two populations. We found that at the site with relatively late spring snowmelt and early autumn snow cover: (i) adult females were larger and in better body condition but had significantly higher stress hormone levels; (ii) females had similar numbers of comparably sized offspring, but offspring had higher stress hormone levels; and (iii) offspring density was lower just prior to hibernation. Thus, adult females at the two sites appear to use different coping strategies that allow them to maintain reproductive fitness; however, marked shortening of the active season because of later snowmelt in spring and earlier snow cover in autumn may compromise juvenile recruitment. We discuss the significance of these findings within the broader context of changing animal-environment relationships.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".