Individual specialization in diet by a generalist marine predator reflects specialization in foraging behaviour
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
1. We studied chick diet in a known-age, sexed population of a long-lived seabird, the Brünnich's guillemot (Uria lomvia), over 15 years (N = 136; 1993-2007) and attached time-depth-temperature recorders to examine foraging behaviour in multiple years (N = 36; 2004-07). 2. Adults showed specialization in prey fed to offspring, described by multiple indices calculated over 15 years: 27% of diet diversity was attributable to among-individual variation (within-individual component of total niche width = 0.73); average similarity of an individual's diet to the overall diet was 65% (mean proportional similarity between individuals and population = 0.65); diet was significantly more specialized than expected for 70% of individuals (mean likelihood = 0.53). These indices suggest higher specialization than the average for an across-taxa comparison of 49 taxa. 3. Foraging behaviour varied along three axes: flight time, dive depth and dive shape. Individuals showed specialized individual foraging behaviour along each axis. These foraging strategies were reflected in the prey type delivered to their offspring and were maintained over scales of hours to years. 4. Specialization in foraging behaviour and diet was greater over short time spans (hours, days) than over long time spans (years). Regardless of sex or age, the main component of variation in foraging behaviour and chick diet was between individuals. 5. Plasma stable isotope values were similar across years, within a given individual, and variance was low relative to that expected from prey isotope values, suggesting adult diet specialized across years. Stable isotope values were similar among individuals that fed their nestlings similar prey items and there was no difference in trophic level between adults and chicks. We suggest that guillemots specialize on a single foraging strategy regardless of whether chick-provisioning and self-feeding. With little individual difference in body mass and physiology, specialization likely represents learning and memorizing optimal feeding locations and behaviours. 6. There was no difference in survival or reproductive success between specialists and generalists, suggesting these are largely equivalent strategies in terms of evolutionary fitness, presumably because different strategies were advantageous at different levels of prey abundance or predictability. The development of individual specialization may be an important precursor to diversification among seabirds.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle