Spatial and behavioral changes by red foxes (<i>Vulpes vulpes</i>) in response to artificial territory intrusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urine marking is thought to play a pivotal role in territory demarcation by red foxes ( Vulpes vulpes (L., 1758)), but little is known about how individuals respond to alien scent marks, and whether there are sex-related differences in territorial defense. We radio-tracked dominant male and female urban foxes before and after synthetic fox urine was applied to approximately a third of their territories and compared spatial and behavioral reactions both before and after scent application and with foxes on territories where no urine was applied. Home-range boundaries of male foxes shifted towards the scent-marked area, but this change did not affect the total territory size. Larger males shifted their home ranges to a greater degree than small males. Scent application did not affect total activity, but males spent more time in the scent-marked area. Behaviors such as distance moved per night and speed of movement did not differ before and after application, but foxes searched a greater percentage of their home range each night following scent marking. Females showed no significant spatial or behavioral response to the synthetic scent marks. Overall, responses of foxes to synthetic scent marks were male-biased and related to changes in space use rather than movement behaviors.
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) | 0.000 | 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".