MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2220454379 · doi:10.1657/aaar0014-057

American Pikas' (<i>Ochotona princeps</i>) Foraging Response to Hikers and Sensitivity to Heat in an Alpine Environment

2015· article· en· W2220454379 on OpenAlexafffund
Natalie Stafl, Mary I. O’Connor

Bibliographic record

VenueArctic Antarctic and Alpine Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsForagingPikaPredationEcologyDisturbance (geology)Abiotic componentOptimal foraging theoryForageBiologyGeographyNational park

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optimal foraging theory predicts tradeoffs in animals balancing net energy intake and predator avoidance. In particular, overall foraging activity could be low if (1) perception of predation risk is high or (2) abiotic conditions are suboptimal. American pikas (Ochotona princeps) are small, food-hoarding mammals whose foraging opportunities are restricted by heat and risk of predation. If hiking disturbance is perceived by pikas as predation risk, it could reduce the amount of food stored overwinter, possibly affecting survival. We simulated hiker disturbance events for 48 pikas in Mount Revelstoke and Glacier National Parks, British Columbia, to estimate foraging time lost due to hikers. We tested risk avoidance hypotheses using four indicators of risk behavior: alert distance (DA), flight initiation distance (DF), exit delay (TE), and delay in return to forage (TR). All hiker disturbance events elicited antipredator behaviors in foraging pikas and reduced foraging time; however, when compared to increasing temperatures over 4–6 hour observation periods, the latter best predicted a reduction in pikas' foraging activity. For every 1 °C increase in temperature, pika foraging activity decreased by 3%. Pikas near trails (&#60;50 m) lost an average of 4.1 (SE = 0.6) minutes of foraging time per disturbance event compared to 13.2 (SE = 1.7) minutes lost by pikas with territories >100 m away from trails. Such differences might reflect habituation in pikas undergoing frequent disturbance. Monitoring pika populations for declines would be sensible given projected trends in warming climate and potential increases in hiking traffic.

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 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)0.004
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArctic Antarctic and Alpine ResearchSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207