Variability in Foraging Behavior and Implications for Diet Breadth among Semipalmated Sandpipers Staging in the Upper Bay of Fundy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During its fall migration stopover on mudflats in the upper Bay of Fundy, Canada, the Semipalmated Sandpiper (Calidris pusilla) is thought to feed primarily on the amphipod Corophium volutator (mudshrimp). Semipalmated Sandpipers typically use a peck-probe foraging strategy and, until recently, there had been little evidence of variability or opportunism in their foraging habits during this stopover. From 2006 to 2008 we recorded data on the sandpipers' foraging behavior and food availability at three commonly used mudflats. Behavior and food availability varied considerably at one site in one year. In 2006 at Grande Anse, where mudshrimp densities were exceptionally low and ostracod densities very high, the peck-probe strategy was almost completely abandoned for “skimming,” a foraging behavior novel in this species. Because of similarities between skimming and grazing, used by Western Sandpipers (Calidris mauri) to consume biofilm, we hypothesized that birds switched to skimming to feed on biofilm. However, chlorophyll a concentration in the top 2–3 mm of sediment, an index of biofilm abundance, was not a good predictor of proportion of time spent skimming. Instead, skimming had a strong, positive relationship with ostracod density, suggesting that the sandpipers skimmed opportunistically to feed on ostracods rather than to target biofilm. Thus Semipalmated Sandpipers are capable of adapting to changes at traditional staging areas by using novel foraging mechanisms, apparently to forage opportunistically on alternative prey. If staging habitats continue to change, alternative foods and foraging modes may become increasingly important to the success of this species' migration.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".