MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412690351 · doi:10.3390/ani15152202

Does Foraging or the Avoidance of Predation Determine Habitat Selection by Selective Resident Grazers in the Serengeti Woodlands? A Mixed Strategy with Season

2025· article· en· W4412690351 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Duncan, A. R. E. Sinclair

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimals · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilRoyal Society
KeywordsPredationHerbivoreForagingEcologyHabitatWoodlandBiologyGeneralist and specialist speciesPredatorSelection (genetic algorithm)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Savanna systems are characterised by a community of large mammal herbivores with up to 30 species; coexistence is based on resource partitioning. In this paper we analyse the features of the landscape and plant structure which lead herbivores to use particular locations, a key to resource partitioning. The processes involved, top-down versus bottom-up, are well known for large species and small ones but not for medium-sized ones. We use two resident, medium-sized species, topi (Damaliscus lunatus jimela) and kongoni, (Alcelaphus buselaphus cokei) in the central woodlands of the Serengeti; selection of habitat by the residents is important for predator-prey interactions and for interactions among the grazers. Using Principal Component Analysis and Multiple Regression we develop highly predictive models which show that resource availability is the critical determinant of habitat selection in the dry season; and reduction in predation risk appears to be important in the wet season. These results show for the first time that habitat selection by the medium-sized herbivores is driven by different strategies in the two seasons. This contributes to understanding the processes involved in the dynamics of this globally important savanna system, a necessary foundation for management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimalsSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207