Edge Effects on the Behaviour and Ecology of Propithecus coquereli in Northwest Madagascar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The energy frugality hypothesis states that in response to Madagascar’s unpredictable habitat, lemurs should adopt strategies of energy optimization. I have applied this hypothesis to lemur behavioural ecology in response to forest edges. I compared two groups of Propithecus coquereli living less than 1-km from a forest edge with two groups living greater than 1-km from the edge in Ampijoroa forest station, Ankarafantsika National Park, NW Madagascar. Edge effects in Ampijoroa penetrated up to 625-m into the forest. Propithecus coquereli were edge avoiders, with 94.54% of sightings of Propithecus coquereli found outside of the area of edge influence. There was no difference between group ranges for density of food trees, however tree diameter at breast height (dbh) and tree height did differ between groups. These habitat differences did not neatly divide edge versus interior groups, but appeared to be more nuanced. I found no differences between groups for activity budgets, food quality, or spatial patterns of plant species/ parts consumed. However, groups nearer to the edge had home ranges that were more than double in size to interior groups. Groups in the interior had higher group-specific densities and more frequent intergroup encounters which may have led groups to adopt smaller ranges to avoid expending energy in intergroup encounters. More evidence of human impact was found in the edge, therefore groups near the edge might also range further to avoid humans. Groups showed differences in the spatial pattern of behaviours, activity by age-sex category, substrate size and vertical location used while traveling, and dietary overlap. However, these differences may not be reflective of distance to the forest edge - all groups avoided the edge - but instead may reflect subtle differences in habitat structure between the four groups.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".