Spatio‐temporal dynamics in the response of woodland caribou and moose to the passage of grey wolf
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predators impact prey populations not only by consuming individuals, but also by altering their behaviours. These nonlethal effects can influence food web properties as much as lethal effects. The mechanisms of nonlethal effects include chronic and temporary anti-predator behaviours, the nature of which depends on the spatial dynamics of predators and the range over which prey perceive risk. The relation between chronic and ephemeral responses to risk determines predator-prey interactions, with consequences that can ripple across the food web. Nonetheless, few studies have quantified the spatio-temporal scales over which prey respond to predation threat, and how this response varies with habitat features. We evaluated the reaction of radio-collared caribou and moose to the passage of radio-collared wolves, by considering changes in movement characteristics during winter and summer. We used an optimization algorithm to identify the rate at which the impact of prior passage of wolves decreases over time and with the predator's distance. The spatial and temporal scales of anti-predator responses varied with prey species and season. Caribou and moose displayed four types of behaviour following the passage of wolves: lack of response, increased selection of safe land cover types, decreased selection of risky cover types and increased selection of food-rich forest stands. For example, moose increased their avoidance of open conifer stands with lichen in summer, which are selected by wolves in this season. Also in winter, caribou increased their selection of conifer stands with lichen for nearly 10 days following a wolf's passage. This stronger selection for food-rich patches could indicate that the recent passage of wolves informs caribou on the current predator distribution and reveals the rate at which this information become less reliable over time. Caribou and moose used anti-predator responses that combine both long- and short-term behavioural adjustments. The spatial game between wolves and their prey involves complex and nonlinear mechanisms that vary between species and seasons. A comprehensive assessment of risk effects on ecosystem dynamics thus requires the characterization of chronic and temporary anti-predator behaviours.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".