Good neighbours? Determinants of aggregation and segregation among alpine herbivores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interspecific interactions often determine the structure and stability of biotic communities. In low-productivity and highly seasonal environments such as the alpine tundra, most interactions occur during a short, snow-free period. The strength and direction of these interactions are likely to be determined by the availability of resources, particularly among species of the same ecological guild. Understanding how species interact in such environments can provide insights into the conditions that facilitate their coexistence. We determined the potential for interspecific interactions among 3 resident medium-sized mammalian herbivores inhabiting the alpine tundra and investigated how they share available space and resources. Overlap in their respective activity areas indicated that these species were aggregated at a landscape scale, but other mechanisms allowed their coexistence at a finer scale. Their distributions were primarily associated with shorter distances to heterospecifics and, secondly, with habitat features related to shelter and escape from predation. Our results suggest that these species can (and do) coexist by partitioning their ecological niches. Competition is likely not a major factor in structuring these communities; in turn, facilitative mechanisms may allow co-occurrence of these sympatric herbivores in seasonal, low productivity environments.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".