Ranging and association patterns of paired and unpaired adult male Atlantic bottlenose dolphins, <i>Tursiops truncatus</i>, in Sarasota, Florida, provide no evidence for alternative male strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies of Atlantic bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, social structure near Sarasota, Florida, revealed two distinct patterns of ranging and association among paired and unpaired adult males. We evaluated these patterns using a longer-term dataset to examine whether they represent alternative strategies. Males were categorized as paired or unpaired based on coefficients of association using survey data collected year-round from 1993 to 2000. Longitudinal data also allowed for determination of lifetime pair-bond status, which enabled analysis of the occurrence of alternative strategies. Male associations with other males and with females of differing reproductive states were examined annually and seasonally. No significant differences were found between paired and unpaired males in either spatial or temporal patterns of association with all classes of females. Lagged association analysis shows that males tend to associate with breeding females preferentially well before the breeding season starts, suggesting that they may develop affiliative relationships with females during the nonbreeding period to influence female choice later. Paired and unpaired males differed in ranging patterns as calculated by the fixed kernel method. Paired males had significantly larger overall ranging areas (95% utilization distribution (UD)) and core areas (25% UD) than unpaired males. Although these differences were significant, additional demographic analyses of lifetime probability of pair-bond formation suggest that pair bonding is the norm among adult males and that unpaired males are a transitional stage rather than an alternative strategy.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".