Predator-mediated apparent competition persists in a rapidly changing Subarctic ecosystem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Alternative Prey Hypothesis (APH) states that predators switch to relatively more abundant prey when their main prey is scarce. In the High Arctic, lemming population cycles indirectly affect predation risk on alternative prey such as shorebird nests as they share a main predator, the arctic fox. In this study, we examined the indirect effects of arvicoline rodent cycles on alternative prey in the Subarctic where arctic and red fox coexist as predators of primary (lemmings, voles) and alternative prey (shorebird nests). Using 10 years of field data, our results indicate that interannual variation in daily nest survival of Dunlin was best explained by an interactive effect of arvicoline rodent abundance and arctic fox (not red fox) abundance. During high rodent years, shorebird nest survival appeared to be buffered from variation in arctic fox abundance but when rodents were absent, nest survival declined. We found no relationship between shorebird nest survival and red fox abundance despite red foxes being found in much higher abundance in the study area. Our results indicate that despite the presence of other predators and multiple primary prey species, predator-mediated interactions common to High Arctic sites, still hold true for the Subarctic in regards to the arctic fox, arvicoline rodents and shorebirds.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".