Individual snowshoe hares manage risk differently: integrating stoichiometric distribution models and foraging ecology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Herbivores making space use decisions must consider the trade-off between perceived predation risk and forage quality. Herbivores, specifically snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus), must constantly navigate landscapes that vary in predation risk and food quality, providing researchers with the opportunity to explore the factors that govern their foraging decisions. Herein, we tested predictions that intersect the risk allocation hypothesis (RAH) and optimal foraging theory (OFT) in a spatially explicit ecological stoichiometry framework to assess the trade-off between predation risk and forage quality. We used individual and population estimates of snowshoe hare (n = 29) space use derived from biotelemetry across three summers. We evaluated resource forage quality for lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium), a common and readily available forage species within our system, using carbon:nitrogen and carbon:phosphorus ratios. We used habitat complexity to proxy perceived predation risk. We analyzed how forage quality of blueberry, perceived predation risk, and their interaction impact the intensity of herbivore space use. We used generalized mixed effects models, structured to enable us to make inferences at the population and individual home range level. We did not find support for RAH and OFT. However, variation in the individual-level reactions norms in our models showed that individual hares have unique responses to forage quality and perceived predation risk. Our finding of individual-level responses indicates that there is fine-scale decision-making by hares, although we did not identify the mechanism. Our approach illustrates spatially explicit empirical support for individual behavioral responses to the food quality–predation risk trade-off.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".