Consumption of red maple in anticipation of beech mast‐seeding drives reproduction in eastern chipmunks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the determinants of reproduction is a central question in evolutionary ecology. In pulsed-resource environments, the reproduction and population dynamics of seed consumers are driven by pulsed production of seeds by trees or mast-seeding. In Southern Québec, eastern chipmunks Tamias striatus exclusively reproduce during the summer before and the spring after a mast-seeding event of American beech. They thus seem to anticipate beech mast by reproducing during early summer, so that juveniles can emerge at the time of maximum beechnut abundance during late summer. However, the cues allowing chipmunks to anticipate beech mast remain unknown, and the existence of the anticipation process itself has been questioned. To tackle those issues, we investigated the links between the nutritional ecology and reproduction of adult chipmunks and compared their spring diet in mast- versus post-mast years. We monitored female reproductive status (N = 446), analysed cheek pouch contents at capture (n = 3,761 captures) and recorded seed production by deciduous trees on three different sites in Mont-Sutton from 2006 to 2018. Results revealed a systematic shift in chipmunk diet towards red maple seeds in springs preceding a beech mast, with red maple seeds composing more than 77% of chipmunk diet. However, red maple consumption was unrelated to red maple production, but was related to beech seed production in the upcoming fall. We also found that red maple consumption best predicted the proportion of females in summer oestrus. Our results confirm that chipmunks anticipate beech mast-seeding and highlight a key role of red maple consumption in that anticipation. Results also suggest that red maple seeds may contain nutrients or secondary plant components essential to sustain or trigger the summer reproduction in chipmunks, which allow them to remain synchronized with pulsed productions of both red maple and beech and improve their fitness.
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".