Canada lynx foraging strategies: Facultative specialists become obligate generalists toward the distribution edge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Spatial and temporal variation in prey availability can affect predator foraging strategies, but it is unclear how large‐scale gradients in prey availability shape predator diets in space and time. The facultative specialist hypothesis predicts that niche expansion by specialist predators is advantageous when preferred prey are limited and alternate prey are available, as might be expected following the collapse of primary prey populations in species‐poor environments or at range margins where species assemblages shift. Canada lynx ( Lynx canadensis ) are broadly distributed and prey predominantly on snowshoe hares ( Lepus americanus ), with other species serving as alternate prey when hares are limited. We used stable isotope analysis of lynx, snowshoe hare, and red squirrel hair during periods of high/low snowshoe hare availability from five regions throughout their distribution, to measure spatiotemporal changes in diet and test the facultative specialist hypothesis. Hares were the primary food item in all lynx diets, irrespective of space and time. Core lynx populations consumed the greatest proportion of hares overall and increased the use of alternate prey when hares were limited. Despite fluctuations in hare availability, lynx toward the southeastern extent of their distribution invariably consumed alternate prey in similar proportions to those exhibited by core populations during hare lows. The temporal consistency of lynx diets in these regions indicates that broader diets are obligate along this distribution edge. Our results provide new evidence for the facultative specialist hypothesis across a broad spatial scale and emphasize that, as specialist–generalist paradigms operate along a continuum, so too can obligate–facultative strategies depending on environmental context.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".