MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416155408 · doi:10.1098/rsos.250662

Seasonal coat-colour moulting phenology of snowshoe hares in a Yukon boreal forest undergoing climate change

2025· article· en· W4416155408 on OpenAlexaffabout
Yadav Ghimirey, Alice J. Kenney, Charles J. Krebs, Madan K. Oli

Bibliographic record

VenueRoyal Society Open Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhenologySnowshoe hareMoultingClimate changeTaigaTundraSnowPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate change is slowly influencing boreal forest ecosystems, with rising temperatures and altered snow conditions driving phenological shifts in many plant and animal species. Using 7 years (2016-2022) of camera trap data from the Kluane Lake region, Yukon, we quantified seasonal moulting phenology and coat-colour mismatch in snowshoe hares. Autumn moult started between 28 September and 3 October and completed between 5 and 11 November, with the mean moult duration ranging from 36 to 43 days. Spring moult initiated between 12 April and 27 April and completed between 16 May and 27 May, with moult duration ranging from 24 to 38 days. Contrary to our expectations, there was no evidence of delayed or advanced moulting phenology over this 7-year period. The mismatch between snowshoe hare coat colour and background showed an increasing trend and average whiteness of the snowshoe hare coat in autumn declined. Temperature and snow variables influenced various aspects of seasonal moulting phenology, in some cases in the opposite direction. Long-term studies utilizing intrinsic and high-resolution microclimatic data and behavioural observations are needed to understand how moulting phenology and mismatch affect predator-prey dynamics and snowshoe hare demography and population dynamics as climate change continues.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRoyal Society Open ScienceSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207