Tigers in their new territory: intraspecific interactions among the reintroduced tiger population in Panna Tiger Reserve, Central India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intra-specific interactions among top carnivores are among the most intriguing behavioural aspects and essential components of population dynamics. Static interactions pertain to space use, while dynamic interactions involve spatio-temporal patterns influenced by social structure, distribution, mate selection, and density. Previous studies have focused on static interactions, successfully estimating spatial overlap but leading to a knowledge gap of dynamic interaction to be able to compute attraction and avoidance on similar spatio-temporal scales. We fitted VHF and GPS collars to 13 tigers to study the static and dynamic interactions among the reintroduced tiger population in Panna Tiger Reserve. To investigate spatial interactions, we used Autocorrelated Kernel Density Estimator methods. To capture dynamic interactions at different scales, we calculated Benhamou's Movement Interaction index and a Correlation Coefficient (Cr) at two critical distance thresholds (Δ500m and 100m). We documented 18 and 35 intra-sex dyads for males and females respectively, and 73 inter-sex dyads from 2009 to 2019. We observed high spatial overlap in male*female dyads. Dynamic interactions and similar movement patterns were noted in mother*cub dyads, while male movements were predominantly independent. We evaluated 23 male*female dyads and found moderate to strong dynamic interactions between individuals. Spatial interaction largely depends on home-range shape and size and does not necessarily affect dynamic interaction. Males and females moved independently to avoid intra-guild competition, exhibiting unsynchronized movement patterns. However, interaction was infrequently recorded, primarily during mating. Female siblings showed philopatry and preferred to move jointly before establishing their own territories. Initially, founder females had limited choice for mate selection with only one male, but as more males became available, females exhibited clear and consistent mate selection. This indicates that founder populations for reintroduction should include adequate mate choices.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".