Does habitat type modify group size in roe deer and red deer under predation risk by Iberian wolves?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined whether group size in red deer ( Cervus elaphus L., 1758) and roe deer ( Capreolus capreolus (L., 1758)) under predation risk by Iberian wolves ( Canis lupus L., 1758) is affected by the type of habitat in which the deer reside. We hypothesized that group size (i) would be larger in open than in closed habitats, since it is an antipredator response, and (ii) would vary more with habitat type in the species that had higher wolf predation rates. In the study area, wolves were the only predator of wild ungulates, with roe deer being the main target prey. We performed monthly transects along paths to observe the group size of red and roe deer. In roe deer, the mean group size was significantly higher in open than in closed habitats, serving as an antipredator response. However, in red deer, habitat type did not affect group size. The results indicate that under predation risk by wolves the habitat type influences the grouping behavior of roe deer but not red deer. Furthermore, compared with forests, heaths offer less protection from predators and species in this habitat would benefit from larger group sizes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".