Wild canids and felids differ in their reliance on reused travel routeways
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diverse factors, including environmental features and cognitive processes, can drive animals' movements and space use, with far-reaching implications. For example, repeated use of individual-level travel routeways (directionally constrained but imperfectly aligned routes), which results in spatial concentration of activity, can shape encounter-based processes including predation, mate finding, and disease transmission. However, how much variation in routeway usage exists across species remains unknown. By analyzing GPS movement tracks for 1,239 range-resident mammalian carnivores-representing 16 canid and 18 felid species from six continents-we found strong evidence of a clade-level difference in species' reliance on repeatedly used travel routeways. Across the global dataset, tracked canids had a 15% (±7 CI) greater density of routeways within their home ranges than did felids, rising to 33% (±16 CI) greater in landscapes shared with tracked felids. Moreover, comparisons within species across landscapes revealed broadly similar home range routeway densities despite habitat differences. On average, canids also reused their travel routeways more intensively than did felids, with hunting strategies and spatial contexts also contributing to the intensity of routeway usage. Collectively, our results suggest that key aspects of carnivore routeway-usage have an evolutionary component. Striking interspecific and clade-level differences in carnivores' reliance on reused travel routeways within home ranges identify important ways in which the movement patterns of real-world predators depart from classical assumptions of predator-prey theory. Because such departures can drive key aspects of human-wildlife interactions and other encounter-based processes, continued investigations of the relationships between movement mechanisms and space use are critical.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".