The biogeochemical boomerang: Site fidelity creates nutritional hotspots that may promote recurrent calving site reuse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animals interact with nutrient cycles by consuming and depositing nutrients, interactions studied separately in nutritional ecology and zoogeochemistry. Recent theoretical work bridges these disciplines, highlighting that animal-driven nutrient recycling could be crucial in helping animals meet their nutritional needs. When animals exhibit site fidelity, they consistently deposit nutrients, potentially improving vegetation quality. We investigated this potential feedback by analysing changes in forage nitrogen stocks following simulated caribou calving. We found that forage nitrogen stocks increased after 2 weeks and remained elevated after 1 year, a change due to increased forage quality, not quantity. We also developed a nutrient budget within calving grounds, demonstrating that natal fluid and calf carcasses contribute substantial nitrogen subsidies. We, thus, highlight a positive zoogeochemical feedback whereby nutrients deposited during calving become bioavailable during lactation and provide evidence that site fidelity creates a biogeochemical boomerang in which animals deposit nutrients that can be reused later.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".