The effect of interspecific competition on habitat selection by voles: an experimental approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) and prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster) prefer habitats with high vegetative cover, but in east-central Illinois, meadow voles tend to be associated with higher cover and prairie voles with lower cover. The competition hypothesis proposes that this pattern of habitat segregation reflects the effects of interspecific competition on habitat selection. To test this hypothesis we conducted field experiments that allowed the two species to select from among several habitats when alone and when together. We expected to find a lower proportion of each species in the habitat most associated with the other species, and a negative correlation between the demography and density of each species and the density of the competing species, but this was not the case. Inter specific competition did affect movement patterns of prairie voles. In the presence of meadow voles, net movement (immigration minus emigration) of prairie voles in high-cover habitats decreased and net dispersal of individuals from high- to low-cover habitats increased. Thus, our results indicated only a weak effect of competition on habitat selection. We suggest that other mechanisms, such as differences in habitat preference (or tolerance), differences in dispersal ability, and the advantage of first residency, need to be considered in conjunction with interspecific competition to explain the habitat segregation observed in these species.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".