Quantity–quality trade‐offs revealed using a multiscale test of herbivore resource selection on elemental landscapes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Herbivores consider the variation of forage qualities (nutritional content and digestibility) as well as quantities (biomass) when foraging. Such selection patterns may change based on the scale of foraging, particularly in the case of ungulates that forage at many scales. To test selection for quality and quantity in free‐ranging herbivores across scales, however, we must first develop landscape‐wide quantitative estimates of both forage quantity and quality. Stoichiometric distribution models (StDMs) bring opportunity to address this because they predict the elemental measures and stoichiometry of resources at landscape extents. Here, we use StDMs to predict elemental measures of understory white birch quality (% nitrogen) and quantity (g carbon/m2) across two boreal landscapes. We analyzed global positioning system (GPS) collared moose (n = 14) selection for forage quantity and quality at the landscape, home range, and patch extents using both individual and pooled resource selection analyses. We predicted that as the scale of resource selection decreased from the landscape to the patch, selection for white birch quantity would decrease and selection for quality would increase. Counter to our prediction, pooled‐models showed selection for our estimates of quantity and quality to be neutral with low explanatory power and no scalar trends. At the individual‐level, however, we found evidence for quality and quantity trade‐offs, most notably at the home‐range scale where resource selection models explain the largest amount of variation in selection. Furthermore, individuals did not follow the same trade‐off tactic, with some preferring forage quantity over quality and vice versa. Such individual trade‐offs show that moose may be flexible in attaining a limiting nutrient. Our findings suggest that herbivores may respond to forage elemental compositions and quantities, giving tools like StDMs merit toward animal ecology applications. The integration of StDMs and animal movement data represents a promising avenue for progress in the field of zoogeochemistry.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".