Trade‐Offs Between Forage Availability, Accessibility, and Predation Risk on Winter Foraging Strategies of Wood Bison (<i>Bison bison athabascae</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Optimal foraging theory (OFT) and the energy maximization hypothesis (EMH) have long been essential when examining wildlife habitat selection. At high latitudes and altitudes, animals in winter face greater limitations in availability and accessibility of forage. Here we explore the foraging behavior of wood bison (Bison bison athabascae) during winter within the Ronald Lake bison herd in northeastern Alberta, Canada, and examine the trade‐offs they face due to limitations in forage abundance and availability (snow conditions), as well as the need to minimize predation risk. We used Global Positioning System (GPS) location data collected from 70 female wood bison to identify winter foraging sites and craters selected by bison to access forage beneath the snow. Within wetlands used by bison we selected 190 pairs of used (foraged) and random (available) sites to test eight a priori hypotheses explaining how bison traded‐off between forage availability, accessibility, and minimizing predation risk. We found with matched‐paired logistic regression that Carex atherodes was 1.21‐times more likely to be selected per unit increase in ground cover, compared to 1.17‐times per unit ground cover for C. aquatilis and C. utriculata. However, all Carex species showed an increase in selection when cover was > 50% cover within individual craters. While the importance of Carex was clear, forage site selection was still inversely related to snow depth. There is also a neutralizing combined effect of snow depth and Carex species ground cover which suggests that bison maximized their energy return by avoiding areas with deep snow (> 30 cm) that demanded intensive cratering, even when highly selected forage was accessible beneath. Avoidance of forage areas with deep snow demonstrates that wood bison employed a foraging strategy that considers both forage availability and environmental conditions, with snow depth being a limiting factor. We highlight the relationship between optimal foraging based on food availability and the trade‐offs within an energy restrictive winter season, furthering the understanding of how large herbivores forage strategically to maximize energy intake in northern environments.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".