Complex tactics in a dynamic large herbivore–carnivore spatiotemporal game
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The spatiotemporal game between predators and prey is a fundamental process governing their distribution dynamics. Players may adopt different tactics as the associated costs and benefits change through time. Yet few studies have investigated the potentially simultaneous and dynamic nature of movement tactics used by both players. It is particularly unclear to what extent perceived predation risk mediates the fine‐scale distribution of large and dangerous prey, which are mostly driven by bottom–up, resource‐related processes. We built habitat use and movement models based on 10 years of monitoring GPS‐collared grey wolves Canis lupus and plains bison Bison bison bison in Prince Albert National Park, Canada, to investigate the predator–large prey game in a multi‐prey system. Bison did not underuse patches of high‐quality vegetation at any time during the seasonal cycle even though wolves were selectively patrolling these areas. Rather, in at least one season, bison engaged in complex tactics comprised of proactive responses to the long‐term distribution (risky places) and reactive responses to the immediate proximity (risky times) of their opponent. In summer–autumn, bison reduced the time spent in food‐rich patches as both the long‐term use and the immediate proximity of wolves increased. By demonstrating that wolf distribution triggers patch abandonment by bison, we provide a key element in support of the shell game hypothesis – where prey move constantly to avoid predators attempting to anticipate their location. In winter, a season of relatively high energetic stress, bison no longer abandoned food‐rich patches as predation risk increased, while no bison responses to wolves were observed in spring–summer. Our work demonstrates the highly dynamic and complex nature of the predator–large prey spatiotemporal game, a key trait‐mediated mechanism by which trophic interactions structure ecological communities.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".