PARADOXICAL AVOIDANCE OF ENRICHED HABITATS: HAVE WE FAILED TO APPRECIATE OMNIVORES?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Omnivores have not figured prominently in our understanding of food webs and prey dynamics even though they can have substantial direct and indirect effects on the structure of ecological communities and on the dynamics of interacting species. The important role of omnivores is implicated by the paradoxical results of a food-supplementation experiment. The experiment was designed to test theories that predict how habitat change affects the distribution of habitat-selecting species. According to theories of habitat selection, a quantitative change in habitat (as caused by supplemental food) should increase consumer population size and alter habitat selectivity. Related theories of patch use predict that consumers should increase their use of enriched patches. A two-year experiment on two species of small mammals in Canada's boreal forest failed to alter population densities of red-backed voles, but did cause a dramatic shift in vole habitat use. Rather than increasing their use of feeding stations as predicted by classical theory, voles avoided them. Deer mice did not respond to the experimental treatments. The paradoxical results occurred because omnivorous black bears altered prey behavior by increasing predation risk at feeding stations. Revised theory confirms the indirect omnivore effect, and demonstrates that the behavioral paradox is far more likely for omnivores than for other types of predators. The behavioral paradox of enrichment highlights not only important new, and potentially stabilizing, roles for omnivores, but also the pervasive influences of behavior and habitat selection on population dynamics and regulation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".