Different selection criteria may relax competition for denning sites between expanding and endemic predators on the low-Arctic tundra
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Climate warming is favoring the expansion of non-native species onto the Arctic tundra, where they may compete over resources with native species. In the harsh tundra conditions, sympatric red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and Arctic foxes (Vulpes lagopus) may compete over denning sites, which are important for their reproduction and survival. We studied den selection by red and Arctic foxes in spring and summer, and their possible competition over this resource in an ecotone near Churchill, Manitoba, on the west coast of Hudson Bay, by examining patterns of den occupancy related to den characteristics and spacing patterns between neighbors. Based on 11 years of occupancy data for 42 tundra dens, we determined that red and Arctic foxes favored dens based on shelter quality in both spring and summer, rather than proximity of specific habitats (and thus specific prey). Mechanisms of den selection differed between species, which may promote co-existence, and areas of high den density were avoided by red foxes and preferred by Arctic foxes. We did not find evidence of exclusion of Arctic foxes by red foxes: spacing patterns showed that foxes spaced themselves based on their need for space, territoriality and food availability but not interference. In the current abiotic Arctic conditions, taiga species settling on the tundra could coexist with tundra endemics, at given density thresholds of both competitors. As Arctic conditions may become milder, an increase in newcomer abundance could disrupt the current balance that favors species coexistence.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".