Intraspecific scaling of home range size and its bioenergetic dependence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Home range size and metabolic rate of animals are expected to scale with body mass at similar rates; with home ranges expanding to meet increased metabolic requirements. This expectation has widely been tested using lab-derived estimates of basal metabolic rate as proxies for field energy requirements, however, it is unclear if existing theory aligns with patterns of home range scaling observed in the field. Here, we conduct the first direct field test of the relationship between home range and metabolic rate allometry. Using acoustic telemetry, we simultaneously measured the individual home range size and field metabolic rate of lemon sharks (Negaprion brevirostris) spanning one order of magnitude in body mass. Although scaling rates of field metabolic rate were consistent with standard metabolic rate, home range size scaled at shallower rates than metabolic rates. This is evidence for strong top-down controls on home range scaling rates, likely a result of predation pressure placing constraints on home range expansions. Consequently, direct resource competition can lead to decreased home range scaling rates. We highlight inconsistencies with theory on the effects of population density and competition on home range scaling and propose that the influence of diverse types of competition should be examined.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".