Habitat selection, diet and interspecific associations of the rufous‐tailed weaver and Fischer’s lovebird
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We investigated habitat selection and diets of two co‐occurring endemic bird species (rufous‐tailed weaver, Histurgops ruficauda , Fischer’s lovebird, Agapornis fischeri ) and four other species with which they associated in mixed feeding flocks (red‐billed buffalo weaver, Bubalornis niger , white‐headed buffalo weaver, Dinemellia dinemellii , superb starling, Lamprotornis superbus , and Hildebrandt’s starling, Lamprotornis hildebrandti ) during the dry season in Serengeti National Park Tanzania. Mixed species flocks could facilitate food acquisition and/or act as anti‐predator mechanisms. Five of the six species selected grassland habitat over Acacia habitat along transects. Analysis of species association, using Cole’s coefficient of association, showed that both rufous‐tailed weavers and superb starlings co‐occurred with red‐billed buffalo weavers. Superb starlings were negatively associated with Fischer’s lovebird, Hildebrandt’s starling and white‐headed buffalo weavers. Diet analysis revealed that the rufous‐tailed weaver, white‐headed buffalo weaver, and red‐billed buffalo weaver were generalists eating both insects and seeds, whereas Fischer’s lovebird and superb starling were specialists, selecting only seeds and insects respectively. These data offer some support for the hypothesis that mixed species flocks facilitate mutual food searching.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".