Spatial structure of a diving duck (<i>Aythya</i>, <i>Oxyura</i>) guild: how does habitat structure and competition influence diving duck habitat use within northern prairie wetlands?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What circumstances allow the coexistence of similar species is a common but complex question in community ecology. It is often assumed that sympatric species within the same guild must employ some mechanism of niche diversification to coexist. Diving duck (Anatidae: Aythya Boie, 1822 and Oxyura Bonaparte, 1828) competition is poorly understood and current evidence of coexistence mechanisms is contradictory. In the spring and summer of 2001 and 2002, we tested whether diving ducks foraging within prairie potholes segregate by depth to avoid competition. We sought to explain any segregation by sampling sediment particle size, compactness, and organic content; submergent vegetation; and benthic invertebrate densities in the foraging locations of each species. Our study was conducted at the wetland scale in southwestern Manitoba, Canada. We found that Redheads ( Aythya americana (Eyton, 1838)), Ruddy Ducks ( Oxyura jamaicensis (J.F. Gmelin, 1789)), Canvasbacks ( Aythya valisineria (Wilson, 1814)), and Ring-necked Ducks ( Aythya collaris (Donovan, 1809)) foraged most often at shallow depths (50–100 cm), while Lesser Scaups ( Aythya affinis (Eyton, 1838)) foraged at shallow to intermediate depths (50–150 cm). Thus, most divers did not segregate by depth. These results conflict with an earlier study that reported diving ducks segregated by depth to avoid competition. Diving ducks likely forage where prey abundance is greatest relative to the cost of diving to obtain that prey.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".