Abiotic conditions mediate intraguild interactions between mammalian carnivores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Intraguild (IG) interactions are common among mammalian carnivores, can include intraguild predation (IGP) and interspecific killing (IK), and are often asymmetrical, where a larger more dominant species (IGpredator) kills a smaller one (IGprey). According to ecological theory, the potential for an IGpredator and IGprey to coexist depends on whether the direct consumptive benefits for the IGpredator are substantial (IGP) or insignificant (IK), the extent to which the IGprey is the superior exploitative competitor on shared prey resources, and overall ecosystem productivity. We used resource selection models and spatially explicit age and harvest data for two closely related mesopredators that engage in IG interactions, American martens (Martes americana; IGprey) and fishers (Pekania pennanti; IGpredator), to identify drivers of distributions, delineate areas of sympatry and allopatry, and explore the role of an apex predator (coyote; Canis latrans) on these interactions. Model selection revealed that fisher use of this landscape was strongly influenced by late winter abiotic conditions, but other bottom‐up (forest composition) and top‐down (coyote abundance) factors also influenced their distribution. Overall, fisher probability of use was higher where late winter temperatures were warmer, snowpack was deeper, and measures of productivity were greater. Martens were constrained to areas of the landscape where the probability of fisher use, coyote abundance, and productivity were low and selected for forest conditions that presumably maximized prey availability. Marten age data indicated an increased proportion of juveniles outside of the predicted area of sympatry, suggesting that few animals survived >1.5 years in this area that supported higher densities of fishers and coyotes. Consistent with asymmetrical IG interaction theory, the IGpredator (fishers and, to a lesser degree, coyotes) competitively excluded the IGprey (martens) from more productive, milder temperature habitats, whereas IGpredators and IGprey coexisted in low productivity environments, where a combination of abiotic and biotic conditions enabled the IGprey to be the superior exploitative competitor.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".