MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Spatial decomposition of predation risk using resource selection functions: an example in a wolf–elk predator–prey system

2005· article· en· W2146311541 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mark Hebblewhite, Evelyn H. Merrill, Trent L. McDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueOikos · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersParks Canada
KeywordsPredationHabitatForagingEcologyPredatorOddsSelection (genetic algorithm)Optimal foraging theoryGeographyResource (disambiguation)BiologyMathematicsStatisticsComputer scienceLogistic regression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predation is a fundamental ecological and evolutionary process that varies in space, and the avoidance of predation risk is of central importance in foraging theory. While there has been a recent growth of approaches to spatially model predation risk, these approaches lack an adequate mechanistic framework that can be applied to real landscapes. In this paper we show how predation risk can be decomposed into encounter and attack stages, and modeled spatially using resource selection functions (RSF) and resource selection probability functions (RSPF). We use this approach to compare the effects of landscape attributes on the relative probability of encounter, the conditional probability of death given encounter, and overall wolf and elk resource selection to test whether predation risk is simply equivalent to location of the predator. We then combine the probability of encounter and conditional probability of death into a spatially explicit function of predation risk following Lima and Dill's reformulation of Holling's functional response. We illustrate this approach in a wolf–elk system in and adjacent to Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada. In this system we found that the odds of elk being encountered by wolves was 1.3 times higher in pine forest and 4.1 times less in grasslands than other habitats. The relative odds of being killed in pine forests, given an encounter, increased by 1.2. Other habitats, such as grasslands, afforded elk reduced odds (4.1 times less) of being encountered and subsequently killed (1.4 times less) by wolves. Our approach illustrates that predation risk is not necessarily equivalent to just where predators are found. We show that landscape attributes can render prey more or less susceptible to predation and effects of landscape features can differ between the encounter and attack stages of predation. We conclude by suggesting applications of our approach to model predator–prey dynamics using spatial predation risk functions in theoretical and applied settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations337
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOikosSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207