Antipredator behavior: escape flights on a landscape slope
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few studies have reported flight responses of prey on landscape slopes in the wild, and little theoretical work is available. We present a formal model to predict whether prey should move up or down the hillside after detecting a perched raptor as determined by the duration of the attack once launched by the predator, perching height of the predator, and the landscape slope. We recorded escape responses of blue tits Cyanistes caeruleus and great tits Parus major when approached by a human in the field. This was done in the postfledging period, when the demand for food is high, and when the families usually move to a new site, presumably perceived to be safer, to continue foraging after being exposed to a predator. We found that great tit families, which prefer to forage close to the ground, flew uphill, matching the model’s prediction. However, blue tit families, which forage higher in the canopy, did not move uphill but moved higher up in the trees. Vertical movement upward may be the safest option if the predator is located on the ground. Modeling escape flights may encourage detailed studies of attack and escape behaviors in animals and provide insights in predator–prey interactions in general.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".