Territoriality and resource availability modulate the effect of conspecific encounters on the foraging behaviours of a mammalian predator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The probability of encountering conspecifics shapes multiple dimensions of animal behaviour. For example, territorial individuals increase vigilance, scent marking and alarm calling when approaching home range boundaries. Whether territorial predators modify their foraging behaviours with respect to the probability of encountering neighbouring territory owners is poorly understood. However, this could strongly influence the landscape of predation risk and therefore modulate predator-prey interactions. We studied the movements and behaviours of 23 resident Arctic foxes occupying neighbouring home ranges during two years of contrasting resource availability (abundant resources in 2019, scarce resources in 2022) on Bylot Island, Nunavut, Canada. First, based on simultaneous GPS tracking of individuals, we established which individuals used a territory (an exclusive area) by estimating the spatial distribution of the probability of encountering a neighbour within their home range. Second, using GPS and accelerometry data, we evaluated if the probability of encountering a neighbour influenced the spatial distribution of foraging behaviours, and whether this relationship differed between territorial and non-territorial individuals. When resources were abundant, only breeding individuals excluded other foxes from a part of their home range and were thus territorial. When resources were rare, none of the foxes reproduced and all but one were territorial. Non-territorial individuals in 2019 were less likely to cache prey in areas with a high probability of encounter, possibly reducing the risk of cache pilfering. We found no effect of the probability of encounter on the behaviours of the non-territorial individual in 2022. The probability to cache prey of territorial individuals however did not depend on the probability of encountering a neighbour, suggesting they have no benefit of modulating the distribution of their caches according to potential encounters in a partly exclusive area. Our results thus suggest that Arctic foxes use different tactics to secure resources based on their degree of territoriality and the availability of resources. We highlight how the presence of resident, but non-territorial predators, whose home ranges overlap those of their territorial neighbours, may influence the distribution of predation risk by creating zones where predator density is high, potentially influencing predator-prey interactions.
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 | 0.001 | 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".