Prey availability and intraguild competition regulate the spatiotemporal dynamics of a modified large carnivore guild
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Effective conservation management requires an understanding of the spatiotemporal dynamics driving large carnivore density and resource partitioning. In African ecosystems, reduced prey populations and the loss of competing guild members, most notably lion ( Panthera leo ), are expected to increase the levels of competition between remaining carnivores. Consequently, intraguild relationships can be altered, potentially increasing the risk of further population decline. Kasungu National Park (KNP), Malawi, is an example of a conservation area that has experienced large‐scale reductions in both carnivore and prey populations, leaving a resident large carnivore guild consisting of only leopard ( Panthera pardus ) and spotted hyena ( Crocuta crocuta ). Here, we quantify the spatiotemporal dynamics of these two species and their degree of association, using a combination of co‐detection modeling, time‐to‐event analyses, and temporal activity patterns from camera trap data. The detection of leopard and spotted hyena was significantly associated with the detection of preferred prey and competing carnivores, increasing the likelihood of species interaction. Temporal analyses revealed sex‐specific differences in temporal activity, with female leopard activity patterns significantly different to those of spotted hyena and male conspecifics. Heightened risk of interaction with interspecific competitors and male conspecifics may have resulted in female leopards adopting temporal avoidance strategies to facilitate coexistence. Female leopard behavioral adaptations increased overall activity levels and diurnal activity rates, with potential consequences for overall fitness and exposure to sources of mortality. As both species are currently found at low densities in KNP, increased risk of competitive interactions, which infer a reduction in fitness, could have significant implications for large carnivore demographics. The protection of remaining prey populations is necessary to mitigate interspecific competition and avoid further alterations to the large carnivore guild.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".