Shifts in breeding habitat selection behaviour in response to population density
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We tested whether mountain pine beetles Dendroctonus ponderosae , an insect herbivore that exhibits outbreak population dynamics, modifies its habitat selection behaviour in response to density‐dependent environmental shifts. Using an individual‐based habitat selection model, we formulated predictions of how beetle population density will influence breeding habitat selectivity. Our model predicted that beetles should be more selective at intermediate densities than at low or high densities. The mechanisms influencing optimal selectivity differed between low and high density populations. In low density populations, breeding site availability was the primary factor affecting selectivity, whereas intraspecific competition and the reliability of habitat quality cues were important in high density populations. We tested our model predictions in natural populations that encompassed a range of beetle population densities. Our empirical findings supported the two key predictions from our model. First, habitat quality was more variable in high density populations. Second, individuals in high density populations were less selective compared to beetles from intermediate density populations. Our results demonstrate that beetles alter their habitat selection behaviour in response to density‐dependent shifts. We propose that the behavioural changes we identified may influence the rate at which beetle populations transition between density states.
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 | 0.001 | 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".