Influence of Wind and Humidity on Foraging Behavior of Olfactory Mesopredators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many mammalian predators rely on scents to locate prey and weather conditions that affect an odor plume (i.e., scents suspended in air) or depositional odor (i.e., scents laid on the ground) should affect predator foraging behavior. We predicted that wind speed, wind direction, and humidity would influence the foraging behavior of olfactory mesopredators. We tested these predictions by conducting spotlight surveys for foraging Red Foxes (Vulpes vulpes), Striped Skunks (Mephitis mephitis), and Raccoons (Procyon lotor) along the dike surrounding Willard Bay Reservoir in Willard, Utah, from August 2008 to August 2009. We recorded predator species, locations, numbers, and weather conditions at the time each predator was observed. While humidity had no effect on foraging, wind speed and direction were significant predictors of a predator's nightly foraging activity, with most predators observed when wind speeds were 2 to 4 m/s and winds were blowing perpendicularly over the dike the dike rather than parallel to the dike. Wind speed and direction also influenced where predators foraged on the dike, with predators being more likely to forage on the windward side of the dike when wind speeds were high enough to cause turbulence. We detected differences among predator species in their response to wind speed: Raccoons were more active than Striped Skunks and Red Foxes when the wind was calm and blowing parallel to the dike. Overall, our results indicate that these predator species alter their foraging behavior based on wind speed and wind direction. By foraging when winds were light and blowing perpendicularly over the dike, predators could likely enhance their ability to locate food using olfaction.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".