MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2292908148 · doi:10.1111/1365-2435.12642

Diel movement patterns influence daily variation in wolf kill rates on moose

2016· article· en· W2292908148 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Lucas M. Vander Vennen, Brent R. Patterson, Arthur Rodgers, Scott Moffatt, Morgan Anderson, John M. Fryxell

Bibliographic record

VenueFunctional Ecology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Natural Resources and ForestryUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsDiel vertical migrationPredationBiologyEcologyPredatorZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Variation in predation can have important consequences for predators and prey, but little is known about associated mechanisms. Diel interactions between predators and prey are commonly assumed to be influenced by movement speeds of both predators and prey individuals, sensu the ideal gas model, but the influencing factors of diel predation dynamics have yet to be empirically examined. In this study, we apply principles of the ideal gas model to predict diel variation in kill frequency of moose ( Alces alces ) by wolves ( Canis lupus ) in northern Ontario, Canada based on GPS radio‐telemetry data combined with field verification of kills. We used GPS telemetry data from wolves and moose combined with a unique data set on the diel pattern of wolf kills to test whether predator movement rate, prey movement rate, and ambient light condition influence diel variation in kill rates of wolves on moose. Our results indicate that the kill rate between wolves and moose was principally related to the effective movement rate of predators and prey, as predicted by the ideal gas model. We found little evidence that light conditions had any effect on kill rates, but rather the majority of kill rate variation corresponded to wolf movement rate, which was over an order of magnitude higher than that of moose.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0070.002

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.195 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations46
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFunctional EcologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207