The effect of travel costs on the ideal free distribution in stickleback
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The ideal free distribution (IFD) theory, which predicts that a population of individuals will match the distribution of a patchily distributed resource, is widely used in ecology to describe the spatial distribution of animals. While many studies have shown general support of its habitat matching prediction, others have described a systematic pattern of undermatching, where too many animals feed at patches with fewer resources, and too few animals feed in richer patches. These results have been attributed to deviations from several of the assumptions of the IFD. One possible variable, the cost of travelling between patches, has received little attention. Here, we investigated the impact on resource matching when travel costs were manipulated in a simple laboratory experiment involving two continuous input patches. This experiment allowed us to control for extraneous variables and decouple time costs from energetic costs of travel. Two experiments examined the impact of varying travel costs on movement rates between foraging patches and how these travel costs impact conformity to the IFD. Our data demonstrated that there was less movement between patches and greater discrepancies from the IFD predictions as the cost of travel increased.
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) | 0.000 | 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".