The temporal scale of energy maximization explains allometric variations in movement decisions of large herbivores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Empirical testing of energy maximization models has been used to clarify the drivers of resource partitioning among large herbivores. Most studies, however, have not considered that predictions of optimal diet depend on the temporal scale of maximization. This omission can hinder the effectiveness of optimality principles in elucidating animal distributions, dietary choices, and the dynamics of species coexistence. We used movement analysis and scale‐dependent energy gain modeling to study how three large herbivores share resources: red hartebeest ( Alcelaphus buselaphus ), a 120‐kg grazing ruminant; zebra ( Equus quagga ), a 300‐kg grazing nonruminant; and eland ( Tragelaphus oryx ), a 460‐kg ruminant, mixed feeder. We found that resource partitioning was achieved through a synergy of spatial segregation and interspecies differences in habitat selection and in the temporal scale of energy maximization. Radio‐collared individuals of the three species spent 95% of their time >850 m from one another. Hierarchical movement analysis revealed that red hartebeest and zebra selected grasslands within which they selected patches maximizing their daily energy gains. Selection was particularly strong for red hartebeest, as expected for a ruminant of relatively small size. Unlike the other species, eland avoided grasslands; when they ventured into grasslands, they selected patches offering high short‐term energy gains at the expense of daily gains. This selection for rapid energy gain could reflect relatively high missed opportunity costs when foraging in grasslands due to the broad range of feeding opportunities for this large mixed feeder. This finding is also consistent with the notion that larger herbivores tend to face stronger constraints from resources availability than digestibility. Overall, differences in selection strength and foraging currencies among these large herbivores are consistent with allometric theory. Our study illuminates the drivers of resource partitioning that can promote the coexistence of large herbivore species, while also showing that, to provide a useful and robust basis to explain animal movement and resource partitioning, energetic models should be based on a relevant scale of energy maximization.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".