Arctic fox winter dietary response to damped lemming cycles estimated from fecal DNA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Climate-caused changes in prey abundance may alter predator–prey dynamics in the Arctic food web. Lemmings (Dicrostonyx spp.) are important prey for Arctic foxes (Vulpes lagopus) and their annual population fluctuations drive fox reproduction, creating strongly linked predator–prey population cycles. Winter diet directly impacts Arctic fox reproductive success, but winter prey diversity on the tundra is low. Strategies such as using the marine environment to scavenge seals have allowed Arctic foxes to persist during years of low lemming abundance. However, warming winters have decreased snowpack quality, preventing lemmings from reaching their previous high abundances, which may reduce their impact on predator dynamics. We investigated Arctic fox dietary response to lemming abundance by reconstructing Arctic fox winter diet in the low Arctic. Next-generation sequencing of fecal DNA, from samples (n = 627) collected at dens in winters of 2011–2018, identified prey both from terrestrial and marine environments. Despite lemming cycle damping, Arctic foxes still increased lemming consumption during years of higher lemming abundance. Alternative prey such as marine resources were consumed more during years of low lemming abundance, with up to 45% of samples containing marine resources in low lemming years. In addition, Arctic foxes consumed high proportions of meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus), which may represent a new alternative prey, suggesting climate change may be creating new foraging opportunities. Changes in prey abundance illustrate how climate-caused disturbances are altering Arctic food-web dynamics. Dietary flexibility and availability of alternative prey may become increasingly important for Arctic predators as the Arctic continues to change.
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) | 0.055 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".