MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2626853032 · doi:10.1111/eth.12631

Eavesdropping in solitary large carnivores: Black bears advance and vocalize toward cougar playbacks

2017· article· en· W2626853032 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Justin P. Suraci, Michael Clinchy, Devin Roberts, Liana Zanette

Bibliographic record

VenueEthology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsRaincoast Conservation FoundationWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaParks Canada
KeywordsCarnivoreEavesdroppingCompetition (biology)UrsusCompetitor analysisForagingPredationBiologyEcologyZoologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Large carnivore behavioral responses to the cues of their competitors are rarely observed, but may mediate competition between these top predators. Playback experiments, currently limited to interactions involving group‐living large carnivores, demonstrate that attending to cues indicative of the immediate presence of heterospecific competitors plays a substantial role in influencing competition among these species. Group‐living species vocalize regularly to signal to one another, and competitors can readily “eavesdrop” on these acoustic cues. Solitary large carnivores also vocalize to conspecifics, but much less frequently, reducing the ease with which heterospecific competitors can eavesdrop. Eavesdropping could nonetheless play a substantive role in mediating competition among solitary large carnivores if the benefits of responding to the acoustic cues of heterospecific competitors (reducing risk or locating resources) are sufficiently large. Behavioral interactions between solitary large carnivore species are almost never observed, and there have been no experimental tests of their reactions to cues indicative of the immediate presence of other solitary large carnivores. We used an automated playback system to test the responses of a solitary large carnivore (black bear, Ursus americanus ) to vocalizations of their similarly solitary competitor (cougar, Puma concolor ), presenting both cougar and control vocalizations to free‐living bears foraging along shorelines in British Columbia, Canada. Both mothers with cubs and solitary bears were significantly more likely to advance and vocalize toward cougar than control playbacks, mothers producing one or both of two distinct vocalizations and solitary bears producing just one. Cougars could either represent a potential risk to bears (particularly cubs), or a source of resources, as bears are known to regularly scavenge cougar kills. Our results are consistent with bears eavesdropping on cougars for both these reasons. As with group‐living species, eavesdropping may be common among solitary large carnivores, and may be an important driver of competition between these species.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.379

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.264 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207