Temporal and spatial interactions between an obligate predator, the Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx), and a facultative scavenger, the wolverine (Gulo gulo)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interspecific interactions between sympatric carnivores can be important for the behaviour and demography of involved species. We studied spatial and temporal interactions between an obligate predator, the Eurasian lynx ( Lynx lynx (L., 1758)), and a facultative scavenger, the wolverine ( Gulo gulo (L., 1758)). Wolverines are known to utilize lynx-killed reindeer ( Rangifer tarandus tarandus (L., 1758)) and may benefit from being sympatric with lynx if interference competition is low. We used individual location data from 9 lynx and 17 wolverines to analyse interaction between inter- and intra-specific dyads (n = 195). We found no spatial segregation between lynx and wolverines and we observed no attraction or avoidance between individuals of the two species, independent of proportion of home-range overlap. This opposed our prediction that wolverines will show direct or delayed attraction to lynx. Wolverines may still benefit by scavenging lynx-killed reindeer while avoiding direct encounters with the lynx. Within species, we found attraction between males and females, increasing with proportion of overlap for lynx. Attraction was also found between consexual lynx, while consexual wolverines showed little home-range overlap (7%–9%) and neutral temporal interaction, indicating territoriality. Individual space use may be more influenced by conspecific interactions than by other species.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".