Predator-mediated interactions through changes in predator home range size can lead to local prey exclusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The strength of indirect biotic interactions is difficult to quantify in the wild and can alter community composition. To investigate whether the presence of a prey species affects the population growth rate of another prey species, we quantified predator-mediated interaction strength using a multi-prey mechanistic model of predation and a population matrix model. Models were parametrized using behavioural, demographic and experimental data from a vertebrate community that includes the arctic fox ( Vulpes lagopus ), a predator feeding on lemmings and eggs of various species such as sandpipers and geese. We show that the positive effects of the goose colony on sandpiper nesting success (due to reduction of search time for sandpiper nests) were outweighed by the negative effect of an increase in fox density. The fox numerical response was driven by changes in home range size. As a result, the net interaction from the presence of geese was negative and could lead to local exclusion of sandpipers. Our study provides a rare empirically based model that integrates mechanistic multi-species functional responses and behavioural processes underlying the predator numerical response. This is an important step forward in our ability to quantify the consequences of predation for community structure and dynamics.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".