MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156080010 · doi:10.1890/08-2090.1

Trade‐offs between predation risk and forage differ between migrant strategies in a migratory ungulate

2009· article· en· W2156080010 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredationUngulateForageEcologyTrade-offGeographySpatial ecologyScale (ratio)BiologyHabitatCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trade-offs between predation risk and forage fundamentally drive resource selection by animals. Among migratory ungulates, trade-offs can occur at large spatial scales through migration, which allows an "escape" from predation, but trade-offs can also occur at finer spatial scales. Previous authors suggest that ungulates will avoid predation risk at the largest scale, although few studies have examined multi-scale trade-offs to test for the relative benefits of risk avoidance across scales. Building on previously developed spatial models of forage and wolf predation risk, we tested for trade-offs at the broad landscape scale and at a finer, within-home-range scale for migratory and non-migratory resident elk (Cervus elaphus) during summer in the Canadian Rockies in Banff National Park (BNP) and adjacent Alberta, Canada. Migration reduced exposure to wolf predation risk by 70% relative to residents at the landscape scale; at the fine scale, migrants used areas that were, on average, 6% higher in forage digestibility. In contrast, by forgoing migration, resident elk were exposed to higher predation risk, but they reduced predation risk at fine scales to only 15% higher than migrants by using areas close to human activity, which wolves avoided. Thus, residents paid for trying to avoid predation risk with lower forage quality. Residents may have been able to compensate, however, by using areas of abundant forage close to human activity where they may have been able to forage more selectively while avoiding predation risk. Human activity effectively decoupled the positive correlation between high forage quality and wolf predation, providing an effective alternate strategy for residents, similar to recent findings in other systems. Although ungulates appear capable of balancing risk and forage at different spatial scales, risk avoidance at large landscape scales may be more effective in the absence of human-caused refugia from predation.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.212 · 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