MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970354538 · doi:10.1093/jmammal/gyz124

On-animal acoustic monitoring provides insight to ungulate foraging behavior

2019· article· en· W2970354538 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph M. Northrup, Alexandra C. Avrin, Charles R. Anderson, Emma Brown, George Wittemyer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mammalogy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Natural Resources and Forestry
FundersU.S. Bureau of Land ManagementEncanaColorado Parks and Wildlife
KeywordsForagingUngulateOdocoileusForageEcologyAnimal behaviorOptimal foraging theoryBiologyZoologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Foraging behavior underpins many ecological processes; however, robust assessments of this behavior for free-ranging animals are rare due to limitations to direct observations. We leveraged acoustic monitoring and GPS tracking to assess the factors influencing foraging behavior of mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). We deployed custom-built acoustic collars with GPS radiocollars on mule deer to measure location-specific foraging. We quantified individual bites and steps taken by deer, and quantified two metrics of foraging behavior: the number of bites taken per step and the number of bites taken per unit time, which relate to foraging intensity and efficiency. We fit statistical models to these metrics to examine the individual, environmental, and anthropogenic factors influencing foraging. Deer in poorer body condition took more bites per step and per minute and foraged for longer irrespective of landscape properties. Other patterns varied seasonally with major changes in deer condition. In December, when deer were in better condition, they took fewer bites per step and more bites per minute. Deer also foraged more intensely and efficiently in areas of greater forage availability and greater movement costs. During March, when deer were in poorer condition, foraging was not influenced by landscape features. Anthropogenic factors weakly structured foraging behavior in December with no relationship in March. Most research on animal foraging is interpreted under the framework of optimal foraging theory. Departures from predictions developed under this framework provide insight to unrecognized factors influencing the evolution of foraging. Our results only conformed to our predictions when deer were in better condition and ecological conditions were declining, suggesting foraging strategies were state-dependent. These results advance our understanding of foraging patterns in wild animals and highlight novel observational approaches for studying animal behavior.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of MammalogySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207