Territoriality Modulates the Effect of Conspecific Encounters on the Foraging Behaviours of a Mammalian Predator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The probability of encountering conspecifics shapes animal behaviour, particularly for territorial individuals which often increase vigilance and scent marking when approaching home range boundaries. However, whether the foraging behaviours of territorial predators also vary with the probability of encountering neighbouring territory owners is poorly understood. We monitored 23 Arctic foxes occupying neighbouring home ranges during 2 years of contrasting resource availability on Bylot Island, Nunavut, Canada. First, based on simultaneous GPS tracking of individuals, we established which individuals used a territory 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 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 were less likely to cache prey in areas with a high probability of encounter, possibly to reduce cache pilfering. Territorial individuals were slightly more likely to cache prey as the probability of encountering neighbours increased, suggesting that they do not actively avoid interactions while foraging. We suggest Arctic foxes use different tactics to secure resources based on their degree of territoriality. The presence of non-territorial predators, whose home ranges overlap those of 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) | 0.001 | 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".