Forest structure provides the income for reproductive success in a southern population of Canada lynx
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding intrinsic and extrinsic drivers of reproductive success is central to advancing animal ecology and characterizing critical habitat. Unfortunately, much of the work examining drivers of reproductive success is biased toward particular groups of organisms (e.g., colonial birds, large herbivores, capital breeders). Long-lived mammalian carnivores that are of conservation concern, solitary, and territorial present an excellent situation to examine intrinsic and extrinsic drivers of reproductive success, yet they have received little attention. Here, we used a Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) data set, from the southern periphery of their range, to determine if reproductive success in a solitary carnivore was consistent with capital or income breeding. We radio-marked and monitored 36 female Canada lynx for 98 lynx years. We evaluated how maternal characteristics and indices of food supply (via forest structure) in core areas influenced variation in body condition and reproductive success. We characterized body condition as mass/length and reproductive success as whether a female produced a litter of kittens for a given breeding season. Consistent with life-history theory, we documented a positive effect of maternal age on body condition and reproductive success. In contrast to predictions of capital breeding, we observed no effect of pre-pregnancy body condition on reproductive success in Canada lynx. However, we demonstrated statistical effects of forest structure on reproductive success in Canada lynx, consistent with predictions of income breeding. The forest characteristics that defined high success included (1) abundant and connected mature forest and (2) intermediate amounts of small-diameter regenerating forest. These attributes are consistent with providing abundant, temporally stable, and accessible prey resources (i.e., snowshoe hares; Lepus americanus) for lynx and reinforce the bottom-up mechanisms influencing Canada lynx populations. Collectively, our results suggest that lynx on the southern range periphery exhibit an income breeding strategy and that forest structure supplies the income important for successful reproduction. More broadly, our insights advance the understanding of carnivore ecology and serve as an important example on integrating long-term field studies with ecological theory to improve landscape management.
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".