Collective Vigilance in the Wintering Hooded Crane: The Role of Flock Size and Anthropogenic Disturbances in a Human‐Dominated Landscape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Vigilance achieved at the group level, known as collective vigilance, can enhance the ability to assess threats and confer benefits to gregarious prey species. Examining the factors that influence collective vigilance and exploring how individual vigilance is organized at the group level can help to understand how prey groups respond to potential threats. We quantified collective vigilance and determined its temporal pattern in a natural wintering population of the hooded craneGrus monachain the Shengjin Lake reserve in China. We examined the role of flock size and anthropogenic disturbances in the human‐dominated landscape on collective vigilance and level of synchronization. The proportion of time during which at least one individual scanned the surroundings (collective vigilance) increased with flock size and was higher in the more disturbed buffer zone of the lake. Synchronization of vigilance occurred more frequently in the smaller flocks but was not related to the risk of disturbance. Synchronization implies that individuals tend to monitor and copy the vigilance of neighbors. In the degraded wetlands, the wintering hooded crane benefits from foraging in groups and synchronizing their vigilance in response to human disturbances.
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) | 0.001 | 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".