Sex and sociality in a disconnected world: a review of the impacts of habitat fragmentation on animal social interactionsThis review is one of a series dealing with some aspects of the impact of habitat fragmentation on animals and plants. This series is one of several virtual symposia focussing on ecological topics that will be published in the Journal from time to time.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the extensive literature describing the impacts of habitat fragmentation on the distribution and abundance of species, fragmentation effects on life-history strategies have been relatively understudied. Social interactions are important life-history attributes that have fitness consequences for individuals and have been observed to differ among populations in relation to geographic and demographic variability. Therefore, habitat fragmentation is expected to affect social interactions, and these social impacts or responses may contribute to population viability and broad-scale patterns of distribution and abundance in fragmented landscapes. Here we review the emerging literature on this issue. We focus on the impacts of habitat fragmentation that are expected to, or have been observed to, affect social strategies. These include altered resource distribution (e.g., habitat quality, spatial configuration of patches), interspecific interactions (e.g., predator–prey and host–parasite dynamics, human disturbance), and sex (mate availability and inbreeding risk). The studies we cite identified altered social interactions in response to these influences, including changes to home-range overlap, territoriality, group size, and mating systems. The observed changes to social interactions include passive responses, whereby social interactions are affected by constraints introduced by habitat fragmentation, and adaptive social responses to a modified environment. We suggest that future research could focus on individual fitness benefits and on consequences for population viability of altered social interactions in fragmented environments.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".