Habitat use by female western roe deer (Capreolus capreolus): influence of resource availability on habitat selection in two contrasting years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In most previous studies of habitat selection, the use of a given habitat type is assumed to be directly proportional to its availability. However, the use and (or) the selection of a given habitat may be conditional on the availability of that habitat. We aim here to (i) identify the environmental variables involved in habitat selection, (ii) identify classes of individuals with similar patterns of habitat selection, and (iii) assess whether habitat use changes with changing availability of habitat types, within monthly home ranges of female western roe deer ( Capreolus capreolus (L., 1758)). We found that some females adjust their habitat use according to the distribution of resources within habitats. Females with similar home ranges in terms of resource quantity and quality showed similar patterns of habitat selection. Differences in habitat use between 2 years with contrasting resource availability showed that temporal changes of environmental conditions influenced the pattern of habitat selection by female roe deer. Habitat selection also differed between periods of the life cycle likely because of contrasted energy requirements. This study shows that the relationship between habitat use by herbivores and habitat availability is nonproportional, and that the availability of resources influences use mostly at intermediate values.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".