Predators choose prey over prey habitats: evidence from a lynx–hare system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resource selection is grounded in the understanding that animals select resources based on fitness requirements. Despite uncertainty in how mechanisms relate to the landscape, resource selection studies often assume, but rarely demonstrate, a relationship between modeled variables and fitness mechanisms. Using Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) and snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) as a model system, we assess whether prey habitat is a viable surrogate for encounters between predators and prey. We simultaneously collected winter track data for lynx and hare in two study areas. We used information criteria to determine whether selection by lynx is best characterized by a hare resource selection probability function (RSPF) or by the amount of hare resource use. Results show that lynx selection is better explained by the amount of hare use (SIC = -21.9; Schwarz's Information Criterion) than by hare RSPF (SIC = -16.71), and that hare RSPF cannot be assumed to reveal the amount of resource use, a primary mechanism of predator selection. Our study reveals an obvious but important distinction between selection and use that is applicable to all resource selection studies. We recommend that resource selection studies be coupled with mechanistic data (e.g., metrics of diet, forage, fitness, or abundance) when investigating mechanisms of resource selection.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".