MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215401415 · doi:10.1111/jzo.12944

Where and when does the danger lie? Assessing how location, season and time of day affect the sequential stages of predation by lions in western Serengeti National Park

2021· article· en· W3215401415 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrew M. Kittle, John Bukombe, A. R. E. Sinclair, Simon Mduma, John M. Fryxell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Zoology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaZoologische Gesellschaft Frankfurt
KeywordsPredationAbundance (ecology)NocturnalCrepuscularEcologyRange (aeronautics)BiologyPredatorNational parkCompetition (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Predation is a fundamental ecological process influencing the distribution and abundance of animal populations and underlying how prey species perceive risk. The predation process is composed of four sequential stages – search, encounter, attack and kill – each of which has been used to describe risk across the landscape. Here, we used direct observational data of free‐ranging, radio‐collared African lions in Serengeti National Park's western corridor to (1) investigate daily and seasonal predation stage probabilities and (2) using two analytical approaches, compare four mechanisms – prey distribution, intra‐specific competition, spatially anchored landscape features and predator hunting method – that potentially drive spatial predation stage patterns. Results showed that lions encountered potential prey at night significantly less than during diurnal or crepuscular periods. Nocturnal observations were predominantly during full‐moon phases, so if this lower nocturnal encounter rate was due to moon phase it may contribute to lions' typically poor full‐moon hunting success. Predation stage probabilities did not differ between seasons despite high variability in seasonal prey abundance. Spatially, lions encountered potential prey in prey‐rich, open areas near water and spatial range centres. Compared with available areas within seasonal ranges, lion attacks were more likely where prey abundance was high, and kill locations were associated with prey‐rich areas near water and range centres, collectively suggesting opportunistic hunting. However, compared with preceding predation stage locations, attacks occurred near range peripheries and kills where hunting cover was greater, suggesting ambush predation. Our results indicate substantial temporal and spatial variation across the different stages of the predation process. They also highlight first, that results can vary in important ways depending on how analyses are approached, and second, that understanding predator‐prey dynamics depends on analyses of the different stages of predation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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