Limited foraging flexibility: increased foraging effort by a marine predator does not buffer against scarce prey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flexibility in activity time budgets allows animals to cope with heterogeneous and changing environments. Many marine predators, such as seabirds, exhibit flexibility in their foraging behaviour to buffer reproductive success against periods of low prey availability. Over 3 years, 2004 to 2006, we studied the foraging behaviour of a threatened seabird, the marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus in southwestern Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada. An information-theoretic approach was used to compare among factors (temporal, spatial, environmental, and competitors) that may influence diving activity. We also quantified local prey availability by hydroacoustic surveys and regional oceanographic conditions (chlorophyll a concentrations and upwelling indices) to investigate relationships between diving activity, food supply and environmental conditions. Prey indices varied spatially, seasonally, and annually, showing reduced prey availability during incubation and chick-rearing of 2005. Upwelling indices and chlorophyll a concentrations, as an index of primary productivity, were delayed in 2005. Year and breeding phase had the greatest impact on diving activity, with additional variation among sites. Murrelets increased diving activity in years and seasons with scarce prey and poor oceanographic conditions (incubation and chick-rearing 2005) and decreased diving activity at sites with high prey availability. There was a linear relationship between diving activity and food availability, suggesting no clear thresholds in response to decreases in prey. Despite their flexible activity budgets, increased foraging effort by murrelets in 2005 was inadequate to ensure average levels of reproductive success. Thus, flexible foraging behaviour by murrelets may be ineffective to buffer reproductive success when environmental conditions are extremely poor.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".