Influence of habitat on fine-scale space use by brown lemmings (<i>Lemmus trimucronatus</i>) in the High Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Space use by small mammals should mirror their immediate needs for food and predator shelters but can also be influenced by seasonal changes in biotic and abiotic factors. Lemmings are keystone species of the tundra food web, but information on their spatial distribution in relation to habitat heterogeneity is still scant, especially at a fine scale. In this study, we used spatially explicit capture–recapture methods to determine how topography, hydrology, vegetation, and soil characteristics influence the fine-scale spatial variations in summer density of brown lemmings (Lemmus trimucronatus). Lemmings were monitored throughout the summer in wet and mesic tundra habitats and in a predator exclusion grid, which was also located in mesic tundra. We found that in wet tundra, lemming densities were higher at sites with a rugged topography dominated by hummocks, but only during snow melt. In both mesic tundra sites, lemming densities were higher in sites with poor drainage and low aspect throughout the summer. We found no clear association between lemming densities and any tested vegetation or soil variables. Overall, hydrology and topography appear to play a dominant role in small-scale space use of brown lemmings with a secondary role for predator avoidance and food plant abundance.
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 | 0.000 | 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".