Interactions between the short-tailed mouse (<i>Mus spretus</i>) and the wood mouse (<i>Apodemus sylvaticus</i>): diet overlap revealed by stable isotopes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extensive niche overlap between closely related species generally leads to aggressive interactions and competition. The short-tailed mouse (Mus spretus Lataste, 1883) and the wood mouse (Apodemus sylvaticus (L., 1758)) show a large habitat overlap without aggressive interactions. The present study investigates the existence of food competition between these species, based on an analysis of carbon and nitrogen stable isotopes. An almost exhaustive sample of plants, which were potential food resources, was taken and analyzed to infer the consumed plants in mouse diets. The main result showed that both species had a similar diet composition, consisting exclusively of seeds and fruits. This suggests that no competition for food between these species is apparent, or if it exists it would be minimized by a differential exploitation of resources. In the absence of food and space competition,the short-tailed mouse may be using the presence of the wood mouse as an indicator of habitat food quality. In the case of wood mice, we hypothesize that the level of competition with short-tailed mice may be low because of the abundance of resources and because the wood mice may perceive the smaller short-tailed mouse as being equivalent to a young of their own 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".