Foraging behaviour of non‐breeding Western Sandpipers <i>Calidris mauri</i> as a function of sex, habitat and flocking
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals within a population may vary considerably in the way they exploit available food resources. If the sexes differ in the size of their feeding apparatus, there can be differences in foraging behaviour and habitat use, hence one sex may be more susceptible to competition. We examined relationships between sexual dimorphism in bill size and foraging behaviour, and habitat and microhabitat use of non‐breeding Western Sandpipers Calidris mauri at Bahía Santa María, northwestern Mexico. Western Sandpipers are sexually dimorphic, with females about 15% longer‐billed than males. Males used a higher proportion of pecks, had a lower probing–pecking rate, walked at higher rates, foraged at sites with lower water content, and had greater variation in foraging technique than females. Moreover, males decreased their proportion of pecks and foraged at a higher rate than females when they changed from feeding alone to feeding in flocks, suggesting a greater safety advantage or susceptibility to conspecific interference when flock feeding. We compared behaviour and microhabitat usage in three habitats: brackish flats, mangroves, and cattail marshes. Sex‐related differences in foraging behaviour and microhabitat use were consistent among habitats. Birds in brackish flats and mangroves used a higher proportion of pecks, foraged at lower rates and walked at higher rates, and foraged at deeper sites, with a lower proportion of water cover, than those in cattail marshes. Sex‐related differences in foraging behaviour and microhabitat should reduce the level of competition between sexes, and may account for sex differences in Western Sandpiper distribution observed between habitats in Bahía Santa María.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it