Are feeding preferences of white‐tailed deer related to plant constituents?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Controlled feeding experiments can provide valuable insights into food selection of herbivores. We conducted cafeteria trials on captive yearling white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) during 2 years to determine feeding preferences in relation to plant chemical constituents, i.e., nitrogen and fibers. We simultaneously offered 8 species of cultivated and wild plants in monthly foraging trials conducted from June to October. We predicted that species preferences would be positively related to protein content from June to August and to digestible energy in September and October. As predicted, crude protein (CP) was positively related to feeding preferences, particularly as summer progressed. Feeding preferences were also negatively related to fiber content, especially in early summer. Our results indicate high protein needs over the complete growing season for yearling deer but a decrease in overall plant selectivity as summer progresses. Our results also suggest that deer browsing on cultivated plants might be due to higher CP content of cultivated plants than wild plants. To prevent deer impact on crops, managers should favor regeneration of plants rich in CP content in forests. © 2011 The Wildlife Society.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".