Time budget and habitat use of the Common Crane wintering in dehesas of southwestern Spain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many bird species juvenile inexperience drastically reduces their survival, and parents must provide for them. I tested whether time budget and habitat use in adult wintering Common Cranes (Grus grus) in dehesas (pastoral woodland) of western Spain were affected by the presence of juveniles. Juvenile cranes devote less time to vigilance and spend more time feeding than adults in dehesas. Likewise, juveniles are involved in fewer aggressive encounters than adult cranes. Contrary to expectation, adults accompanied by juveniles devoted the same amount of time to vigilance and feeding and had the same intake rate than adults without juveniles in attendance. However, adult cranes with offspring in attendance were involved in more aggressive encounters than adults without juveniles in attendance when both adult groups were involved in large flocks. In contrast, when adults accompanied by juveniles were in small flocks they were involved in fewer aggressive encounters than adults without juveniles. I also detected a differential use of dehesas by adult cranes that was linked to juvenile presence and explained by the vulnerability of juvenile cranes in intraspecific social relationships. Adults with juveniles in attendance preferred dehesas with livestock where flock sizes were smaller than those in dehesas without livestock, and therefore where they might reduce the number of aggressive encounters with other cranes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".