Increased foraging success or competitor avoidance? Diel activity of sympatric large carnivores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The temporal activity of sympatric carnivores reflects trade-offs between avoidance of competitors and predators, and optimizing foraging success. Closely related species may experience greater interspecific competition for resources due to similar morphologies and ecological requirements. Although the mechanisms by which lions (Panthera leo) and leopards (Panthera pardus) partition diet and habitat have been investigated, the degree to which they avoid each other temporally with possible compromises for foraging success remains less clear. In a wildlife conservancy in Zimbabwe, we used camera trap data to investigate the factors influencing the diel activity of lions and leopards. We modeled diel activity using circular statistics and calculated coefficients of overlap using kernel density functions and non-negative trigonometric sums models. Both leopards and lions were predominately nocturnal, with highly overlapping diel activity. The diel activity of leopards also coincided with that of some prey species, especially common duikers (Sylvicapra grimmia). Therefore, we suggest that leopards may prioritize hunting success and prey acquisition over diel avoidance of dominant competitors like lions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".