Data from: Exploration profiles drive activity patterns and temporal niche specialization in a wild rodent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individual niche specialization can have important consequences for competition, fitness, and ultimately population dynamics and ecological speciation. The temporal window and the level of daily activity are niche components that may vary with sex, breeding season, food supply, population density, and predator’s circadian rhythm. More recently, ecologists emphasized that traits such as dispersal and space use could depend on personality differences. Boldness and exploration have been shown to correlate with variation in foraging patterns, habitat use, and home range. Here we assessed the link between exploration, measured from repeated novel environment tests, activity patterns, and temporal niche specialization in wild eastern chipmunks (Tamias striatus). Intrinsic differences in exploration should drive daily activity patterns through differences in energy requirements, space use, or the speed to access resources. We used collar-mounted accelerometers to assess whether individual exploration profiles predicted: (1) daily overall dynamic body acceleration, reflecting overall activity levels; (2) mean activity duration and the rate of activity sequences, reflecting the structure of daily activity; and (3) patterns of dawn and dusk activity, reflecting temporal niche differentiation. Exploration and overall activity levels were weakly related. However, both dawn activity and rate of activity sequences increased with the speed of exploration. Overall, activity patterns varied according to temporal variability in food conditions. This study emphasizes the role of intrinsic behavioral differences in activity patterns in a wild animal population. Future studies will help us understand how yearly seasonality in reproduction, food abundance, and population density modulate personality-dependent foraging patterns and temporal niche specialization.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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".