Contrasts In Energy Status and Marine Foraging Strategies of White-Winged Scoters (<i>Melanitta FUSCA</i>) and Surf Scoters (<i>M. Perspicillata</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
White-winged Scoters (Melanitta fusca) and Surf Scoters (M. perspicillata) are often assumed to rely on similar marine resources. To evaluate the accuracy of this assumption, we contrast seasonal distributions, foraging effort, and indicators of energy status (body mass and composition, plasma metabolites) in three major foraging sites in Puget Sound, Washington, for these rapidly declining sea duck congeners. For Surf Scoters, distributions and energy status indicated that a mussel-dominated site was relatively important in early winter, but that importance shifted during late winter and spring to seagrass sites that provided either herring spawn or epifaunal invertebrates. As winter progressed, movements among foraging sites and increased foraging effort by Surf Scoters were accompanied by greater variability in their energy status compared with White-winged Scoters; body mass declined over winter by >9% in about one-third of past studies for Surf Scoters, well above the range of losses observed in White-winged Scoters. For White-winged Scoters, lower variability in energy status, foraging effort, and distributions throughout winter suggests that they are better able to regulate energy balance regardless of changing foraging conditions. Greater resistance to seasonal environmental changes in White-winged Scoters may be related to their >50% larger body size, which confers lower mass-specific energy costs and access to a wider size range of bivalve prey. Perhaps because of their greater sensitivity to winter foraging conditions, Surf Scoters appear to rely on a broader range of foraging sites than White-winged Scoters.
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".