Foraging and movement paths of female reindeer: insights from fractal analysis, correlated random walks, and Lévy flights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Food-plant and foraging-site selection by semidomesticated female reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus L.) was studied to shed light on the searching and foraging behaviour of this herbivore. The aims of the study were (i) to determine the role of food biomass and (or) plant nitrogen content in feeding-site selection and (ii) to analyse the extent to which movement patterns of reindeer are related to availability of food resources using several models of searching behaviour (fractal analysis, correlated random walks, and Lévy flights). The study was conducted in summer 1999 in a mountainous area of northern Sweden. Reindeer selected different plant communities during this period and changed search pattern in late summer. We found that reindeer selected feeding sites with higher green biomass of Betula spp. and Salix spp. However, there was no sharp threshold for foraging as suggested by some models. Contrary to qualitative predictions of optimal-foraging theory, we found no selection of feeding sites on the basis of the nitrogen content of food. The changed search pattern in late summer and the discrepancy between reindeer foraging paths and a correlated random walk model suggests that reindeer were responding to their environment by changing their searching behaviour.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".