Phytochemical variation within a single plant species influences foraging behavior of deer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine how black‐tailed deer Odocoileus hemionus columbianus respond to phytochemical cues while browsing in heterogeneous phytochemical environments, we offered captive and free‐range deer cloned rooted cuttings and seedlings of western redcedar Thuja plicata selected for varying monoterpene content. Black‐tailed deer were thus allowed to browse among a controlled array of phytochemical cues in a series of experiments designed to evaluate foraging behavior at fine (within plot) and coarse (plot selection) scales. Within‐plot diet selection experiments demonstrated that browse preference for individual western redcedar plants was a function of foliar monoterpene concentration. Individual plant palatability combined with momentary maximization foraging strategy promoted survival of heavily defended plants. Among‐plot foraging experiments demonstrated that coarse‐scale foraging preferences were strongly influenced by distributions of high monoterpene‐containing western redcedar in available plots. Olfaction may play a significant role in both fine and coarse‐scale browse behaviors of deer as they employ a risk‐averse foraging strategy.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".