Foraging segregation in a breeding bird guild declines following nesting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ecological communities appear to have structure, and exploitation of food resources have commonly been implicated in contributing to that apparent structure. Avian communities are frequently used in foraging research, but such studies do not usually document within-landscape patterns of change over seasonal time. I studied a guild of twelve small, foliage-gleaning, insectivorous songbirds in their breeding landscape in central Ontario, Canada. By focussing on foraging preferences indicated by tree species, foraging height, and foraging maneuvers, I compared patterns among the breeding period (June), midsummer (late July and early August), and early autumn (late August to mid September) within the one landscape. Correspondence analysis indicates that each species foraged in a distinct manner, yet there was substantial foraging overlap at all times in preferred (i) foraging tree species, (ii) foraging height, and (iii) foraging maneuvers. As the season progressed, patterns related to preferred foraging height and foraging maneuvers did not change dramatically. However, patterns of preferred foraging tree species did change progressively from breeding to autumn. During the breeding period, the guild tended to exploit different tree species in a manner correlated with the relative availabilities of those species, but this was not the case in midsummer or autumn. By autumn, foraging tree preferences among species were much more homogeneous, especially among wood-warblers of the genus Dendroica Gray, 1842. Consequently, based on preferred foraging tree species, whatever segregation existed during breeding was largely disassembled by autumn.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".