Rut‐Induced Hypophagia in Male Bighorn Sheep and Mountain Goats: Foraging Under Time Budget Constraints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In polygynous ungulates, the rut imposes constraints on male time budgets that generate a trade‐off between maintenance and reproduction, leading to a reduction in time spent foraging. As mating activities can incur substantial somatic costs, males are expected to spend their ‘non‐rutting’ time recovering during the breeding season. If the diminution in time allocated to foraging by males is only a consequence of time budget constraints, males should keep a similar ratio of time spent foraging to lying to that observed in the pre‐rut, leading to an overall reduction of these two activities (the ‘foraging constraint’ hypothesis). Alternatively, if males adopt an energy‐saving strategy, they should limit energy expenditures by reducing foraging but not lying time, as the energy gains of forage intake may not meet the basal energetic requirements, especially in northern and temperate regions (the ‘energy‐saving’ hypothesis). Here, we contrast these two hypotheses by comparing individual daily time budgets of marked adult bighorn sheep rams (Ovis canadensis) and male mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus) during the pre‐rut and the rut. Concordant results for both species support the ‘foraging constraint’ hypothesis, as sexually‐active males reduced time spent foraging and lying from the pre‐rut to the rut because of an increase in time spent in mating‐related activities. Bighorn sheep rams also increased time spent foraging when not engaged in mating tactics, providing further support for a ‘maximisation’ of energy intake in the absence of reproductive opportunities. Because there are also known physiological changes that occur during the rut which may cause appetite suppression, for example to produce metabolic compounds linked with olfactory communication (the ‘scent‐urination’ hypothesis) or to cope with increased burden of parasites (the ‘parasite‐induced anorexia’ hypothesis), further research should aim at simultaneously testing these current hypotheses to better understand rut‐induced hypophagia and its effects on the life histories of male ungulates.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".