MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416676581 · doi:10.1111/1365-2656.70167

Going beyond ‘predation’ and ‘survival’: The importance of demographic changes for understanding snowshoe hare cycles

2025· article· en· W4416676581 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marlène Gamelon, Nigel G. Yoccoz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Ecology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowshoe harePopulation cycleAbundance (ecology)PopulationVital ratesPopulation growthPopulation declineLitterSeasonal breeder

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research Highlight: Oli, M., Kenney, A., Boonstra, R., Boutin, S., Murray, D., Jung, T., Hines, J., Krebs, C. (2026). Demographic mechanisms of snowshoe hare population cycles in Yukon, Canada. Journal of Animal Ecology. https://doi.org.10.1111/1365-2656.70169. Ecologists have long been intrigued by cycles in population abundances characterizing the dynamics of some wild species. Abundance may follow surprisingly regular cycles, with an increase phase, a peak phase and then a decline phase of more or less the same length. Predator-induced mortality has long been proposed as the main demographic mechanism inducing population cycles, leading most of cycle theory to consider that population cycles result from survival changes only. In this paper, Oli et al. (2025) assessed how the cycles in population abundance of the snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) in Yukon, observed during 43 years, are driven by survival or reproductive rates of some specific age classes and how their contributions differ according to the cyclic phase. Thanks to the individual monitoring of more than 7000 snowshoe hares and a state-of-the-art capture-mark-recapture modelling framework, they showed different contributions of age-specific vital rates to the population growth rate, depending on the cyclic phase (increase, peak, decline and low phases) and the breeding period considered (early, mid, late and non-breeding periods). For instance, improved breeding probability, litter size and pre-weaning survival played a major role during the increase phases, whereas lower pre-weaning survival explained population decline. They also highlighted a strong interaction between season and cyclic phases, with, for example, at mid-breeding season, a survival in low phases that is close to the survival observed in increase phases. This led to different life-history strategies over the seasons and the phases: the population had a fast strategy in the early breeding season in the increase phase and a slow strategy in the late breeding season and decline phase, demonstrating a high level of plasticity across phases and seasons. The enigma of population cycles is not fully solved yet, but the study by Oli et al. (2025) clearly contributes to improving our mechanistic understanding of population cycles.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal EcologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207