Density‐dependent, central‐place foraging in a grazing herbivore: competition and tradeoffs in time allocation near water
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optimal foraging theory addresses one of the core challenges of ecology: predicting the distribution and abundance of species. Tests of hypotheses of optimal foraging, however, often focus on a single conceptual model rather than drawing upon the collective body of theory, precluding generalization. Here we demonstrate links between two established theoretical frameworks predicting animal movements and resource use: central‐place foraging and density‐dependent habitat selection. Our goal is to better understand how the nature of critical, centrally placed resources like water (or minerals, breathing holes, breeding sites, etc.) might govern selection for food (energy) resources obtained elsewhere – a common situation for animals living in natural conditions. We empirically test our predictions using movement data from a large herbivore distributed along a gradient of water availability (feral horses, Sable Island, Canada, 2008–2013). Horses occupying western Sable Island obtain freshwater at ponds while in the east horses must drink at self‐excavated wells (holes). We studied the implications of differential access to water (time needed for a horse to obtain water) on selection for vegetation associations. Consistent with predictions of density‐dependent habitat selection, horses were reduced to using poorer‐quality habitat (heathland) more than expected close to water (where densities were relatively high), but were free to select for higher‐quality grasslands farther from water. Importantly, central‐place foraging was clearly influenced by the type of water‐source used (ponds vs. holes, the latter with greater time constraints on access). Horses with more freedom to travel (those using ponds) selected for grasslands at greater distances and continued to select grasslands at higher densities, whereas horses using water holes showed very strong density‐dependence in how habitat could be selected. Knowledge of more than one theoretical framework may be required to explain observed variation in foraging behavior of animals where multiple constraints simultaneously influence 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".