Survival and habitat use of sympatric lagomorphs in bottomland hardwood forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lagomorphs are important consumers and prey in ecosystems worldwide, but have declined due to land use changes and habitat loss, and such losses may be exacerbated for specialist species. We compared survival and habitat use of two closely related lagomorphs, the swamp rabbit (Sylvilagus aquaticus (Bachman, 1837)), a bottomland hardwood (BLH) forest specialist, and the eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus (J. A. Allen, 1890)), a habitat generalist. We tested whether survival and habitat use differed between radio-collared swamp rabbits (n = 129) and eastern cottontails (n = 72) monitored during December 2009 – December 2013 in southern Illinois. We found interactive effects of species and season on survival rates: swamp rabbits had higher annual survival (0.37 ± 0.05 (estimate ± SE)) than did cottontails (0.20 ± 0.05), but this difference occurred primarily during the growing season. Swamp rabbits were located closer to watercourses in areas characterized by higher basal area and more mature BLH forest cover compared with eastern cottontails. Our results suggest that BLH forests may be marginal habitat for cottontails and indicate predation as the primary cause of mortality for both species. Swamp rabbits use of early-successional BLH forest suggests that restoration efforts have been successful. However, as specialists, swamp rabbits remain restricted to a narrow band of bottomlands near watercourses and may benefit from improved upland cover that serves as refugia from flooding.
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 | 0.001 | 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".