Dietary response of Barn Owls (Tyto alba) to large variations in populations of common voles (Microtus arvalis) and European water voles (Arvicola terrestris)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The diet of the Barn Owl ( Tyto alba (Scopoli, 1769)) was studied over an 8-year period in the Jura mountains of France, during two population surges of its main rodent prey (common voles, Microtus arvalis (Pallas, 1778), and European water voles, Arvicola terrestris (L.,1758)), allowing us to test whether T. alba is an opportunistic predator as is often cited in the literature or exhibits more complex patterns of prey selection as is reported in arid environments. Small mammals were sampled by trapping and index methods. We observed (i) significant correlations between the proportions of A. terrestris, M. arvalis, and woodland rodents in the diet and their respective densities in the field; (ii) interactions between populations of A. terrestris and M. arvalis, indicating that the proportion of each species in diet was affected by the density of the other; (iii) proportions of red-toothed shrews (genus Sorex (L., 1758)) in the diet did not correlate with their abundance in the field, indicating that those species were likely to be preyed upon when others were no longer available. This confirms that T. alba is generally opportunistic; however, prey selection of a focal species (e.g., Sorex spp., grassland species) can be affected by the density or availability of the other prey species.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".