Testing the Prey-Trap Hypothesis at Two Wildlife Conservancies in Kenya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protecting an endangered and highly poached species can conflict with providing an open and ecologically connected landscape for coexisting species. In Kenya, about half of the black rhino (Diceros bicornis) live in electrically fenced private conservancies. Purpose-built fence-gaps permit some landscape connectivity for elephant while restricting rhino from escaping. We monitored the usage patterns at these gaps by motion-triggered cameras and found high traffic volumes and predictable patterns of prey movement. The prey-trap hypothesis (PTH) proposes that predators exploit this predictable prey movement. We tested the PTH at two semi-porous reserves using two different methods: a spatial analysis and a temporal analysis. Using spatial analysis, we mapped the location of predation events with GPS and looked for concentration of kill sites near the gaps as well as conducting clustering and hot spot analysis to determine areas of statistically significant predation clustering. Using temporal analysis, we examined the time lapse between the passage of prey and predator and searched for evidence of active prey seeking and/or predator avoidance. We found no support for the PTH and conclude that the design of the fence-gaps is well suited to promoting connectivity in these types of conservancies.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".