Opposite companion effect on flight initiation distance in sympatric species: plateau pika (<i>Ochotona curzoniae</i>) and White-rumped Snowfinch (<i>Onychostruthus taczanowskii</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are many factors influencing prey’s risk perception and escape decision during predator–prey encounters. The distance at which animals move away from perceived danger (often quantified as flight initiation distance or FID) has been used by behavioral ecologists to understand the economics of antipredator behavior. Using general linear models, we investigated escape decision-making processes in plateau pika (Ochotona curzoniae (Hodgson, 1858)) and White-rumped Snowfinch (Onychostruthus taczanowskii (Prjevalsky, 1876), formerly known as Montifringilla taczanowskii Przewalski, 1876) together and we found that (i) there are significant positive correlations between starting distance and FID in both species; (ii) pika escapes at a longer distance from an approaching intruder when it is far from its burrow; (iii) foraging animals tolerate closer distances than watching ones, both in pikas and in Snowfinches; (iv) conspecifics seem to have no effect on pikas’ escaping behavior, while the appearance of Snowfinches dramatically decreases the FID of pikas. On the contrary, conspecifics significantly decrease the FID of Snowfinches, while the presence of pikas has no effects. These findings provide new evidence, which are consistent with optimal escape theory. These novel results in multispecies interactions prompt us to pay attention to the potential relationship between pikas and Snowfinches, as well as the “bird–pika in one hole” phenomenon.
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) | 0.002 | 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".