Why are Male Columbian Ground Squirrels Territorial?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Male territorial defence is a component of many vertebrate mating systems and is often regarded as a tactic for acquiring mates. Traditionally considered within the context of overt site‐specific defence, territoriality actually may have several components which encompass a variety of behavioural tactics (e.g. post‐copulatory mate‐guarding, defence of resources that females need, defence of area around females) that underlie a mating system. The purpose of our study was to evaluate such influences on the territorial behaviour of male Columbian ground squirrels in southwestern Alberta, Canada. Males were dominant and territorial if they defended a minimum convex polygon activity range by chasing other males more within the activity range than they were chased. Subordinate males had no territory and were chased throughout their ranges, but they competed for mates by increasing chases in their activity range when nearby females were oestrous. Dominant males exhibited conditional breeding tactics, tending to chase other dominant males from their territory when nearby females were oestrous, but travelling outside their activity ranges to chase subordinate males when females were not oestrous. Although females mated first with a dominant male on whose territory they resided (and in order from oldest to youngest if several territories overlapped), mating pairs were not exclusive, as females usually mated with additional males. Males also guarded females after copulation and defended females directly just before oestrus, rather than defending territory per se during those times. Thus, males possess a repertoire of behaviours that complement site‐specific territoriality, and territory ownership serves to facilitate a first mating with females that live on the territory.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".