When death comes: linking predator–prey activity patterns to timing of mortality to understand predation risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The assumption that activity and foraging are risky for prey underlies many predator–prey theories and has led to the use of predator–prey activity overlap as a proxy of predation risk. However, the simultaneous measures of prey and predator activity along with timing of predation required to test this assumption have not been available. Here, we used accelerometry data on snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus) and Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) to determine activity patterns of prey and predators and match these to precise timing of predation. Surprisingly we found that lynx kills of hares were as likely to occur during the day when hares were inactive as at night when hares were active. We also found that activity rates of hares were not related to the chance of predation at daily and weekly scales, whereas lynx activity rates positively affected the diel pattern of lynx predation on hares and their weekly kill rates of hares. Our findings suggest that predator–prey diel activity overlap may not always be a good proxy of predation risk, and highlight a need for examining the link between predation and spatio-temporal behaviour of predator and prey to improve our understanding of how predator–prey behavioural interactions drive predation risk.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".