A test of the green wave hypothesis in omnivorous brown bears across North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Herbivorous animals tend to seek out plants at intermediate phenological states to improve energy intake while minimizing consumption of fibrous material. In some ecosystems, the timing of green‐up is heterogeneous and propagates across space in a wave‐like pattern, known as the green wave. Tracking the green wave allows individuals to prolong access to higher‐quality forage. While there is a plethora of empirical support for such behavior in herbivorous taxa, the green wave hypothesis (GWH) is nuanced based on factors such as body morphometrics and digestive capacity. Furthermore, little is known about whether other taxa, such as omnivores, track the green wave. Our objective was to assess whether the GWH can be extended to explain the movements of omnivores. Using GPS collar data from seven populations (n = 127 individuals) of brown bears Ursus arctos across their entire North American range, we first tested whether bears tracked the green wave. Using conditional resource selection functions (RSFs), we found that variation in proxies of vegetative forage quality better explained movement and habitat selection than proxies of forage biomass in over half of the bears in our study, providing evidence of green wave tracking. Second, we assess factors that explained variation in green wave tracking using linear mixed effects models. Green wave tracking in brown bears was explained by the variation in availability of green‐up within spring home ranges, and how green‐up transitioned across those home ranges. Our results demonstrate that the GWH can partially explain movement of a non‐migratory omnivorous species, extending the generality of the GWH as a broad predictor of animal space use. The green wave is another resource wave brown bears track, and our findings help predict brown bear space use, which can be used to guide conservation and habitat restoration efforts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".