Linking the foraging performance of a marine predator to local prey abundance
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
Summary Knowledge of the functional response of predators to prey densities conditions our understanding of food webs. Such links are still poorly understood within the higher trophic levels of marine ecosystems. We present the first field study recording the foraging effort and foraging yield of a seabird (the Great Cormorant, Phalacrocorax carbo ) as well as the abundance and quality of prey within its foraging area. We confirm that Great Cormorants foraging off West‐Greenland show the highest foraging performance recorded for a marine predator (between 17 and 41 g fish caught per minute underwater). Former work suggests that such high foraging yield should be based upon the exploitation of extremely profitable prey patches. Contrary to this hypothesis, average prey abundances estimated within the foraging areas of the cormorants were low (0·03–0·09 prey m −2 , depending on methods), as was the average calorific value of the prey items (4·2 kJ g −1 ). Our study suggests that Great Cormorants remain highly successful predators even when exploiting modest prey resources. These findings have implications for our understanding of predator–prey relationships, and for the management of Great Cormorant populations.
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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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