Adaptive anti-predatory responses of European rabbits exposed to different predation pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Prey species develop anti-predatory strategies as a response to minimising the risk of being predated. However, how the European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) adapts to different predator pressure is not fully known. Here, we studied the adaptive anti-predatory responses of European rabbits exposed to different terrestrial predation pressure. To do this, we took advantage of a rabbit translocation programme in the Sierra Norte Natural Park of Sevilla (SW Spain), where rabbits from the same donor population were translocated in plots with and without terrestrial predator exclusion fences (aerial predation was not excluded in any of the plots). This presented an ideal opportunity to observe whether the behaviour of individuals from the same population adapts to situations with different predator pressure; thus, their behaviour was evaluated through direct observations. Although most rabbits were observed close to cover, differences in distance to cover, group size and behaviour were observed between fenced and unfenced plots. Overall, both adult and juvenile rabbits moved further from cover in the unfenced plot than in the fenced plot. Most of the observations in the unfenced plot corresponded to rabbits in pairs or alone; whereas in the fenced plot, rabbits were primarily in pairs or in larger groups. Our findings suggest that in the unfenced plot, rabbits that moved further from cover were often part of larger groups (≥ 4 rabbits); whereas in the fenced plot, it was rabbits in smaller groups (< 4 rabbits). Rabbits in the unfenced plot were alert and running more frequently than rabbits in the fenced one; in the latter, these rabbits were mostly feeding. Other relaxed behaviours such us grooming or resting were more frequent close to cover. In summary, our results highlight rabbits' capacity to promptly adjust behaviour in response to predation risk, exhibiting adaptive anti-predatory responses tailored to different predation pressures. These insights contribute to understanding the nuanced dynamics of prey species' responses to diverse predation scenarios.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".