Crop Raiding Patterns of Solitary and Social Groups of Red-Tailed Monkeys on Cocoa Pods in Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crop damage by wildlife is a very prevalent form of human-wildlife conflict adjacent to protected areas, and great economic losses from crop raiding impede efforts to protect wildlife. Management plans are needed to decrease damage by raiding wildlife, yet conservation biologists typically lack the basic information needed for informed conservation strategies. Red-tailed monkeys ( Cercopithecus ascanius) raid a variety of crops adjacent to protected forests in East Africa; however, the role of group structure on crop raiding has not been explored. Here, crop raiding patterns of solitary males and social groups were investigated during 10 months in a plantation of mature cocoa in Uganda. Monkeys gained access to the plantation via trees planted as wind breaks and shade trees, and the sighting frequency of groups was negatively related to the distance from the forest edge. In contrast, solitary males were sighted more frequently far from the forest edge and caused proportionately greater damage than members raiding in a social group. These results highlight that for social animals, crop raiding behavior can vary among types of social groupings; appropriate strategies to cope with raiding must therefore respond to this variation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".