Microhabitat use and prey capture of a bottom-feeding top predator, the European shag, shown by camera loggers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies of the fine-scale use of foraging habitat are essential for understanding the role of seabirds in marine ecosystems. However, until recently, relationships between foraging and habitat usage were only possible at a coarse scale. We used miniaturized bird-borne digital still-picture camera loggers to obtain high-quality images of the foraging habitat used by 9 European shags Phalacrocorax aristotelis. Underwater images revealed that shags are almost exclusively benthic feeders, but used 2 very distinct foraging habitats: sandy areas and rocky areas with brittlestars, soft corals and kelp. We found no evidence that individuals specialize on a particular habitat. Birds were recorded in rocky and sandy areas over the course of a day and in some cases within a trip. Foraging behaviour differed markedly between habitats. In rocky areas birds foraged solitarily, over a wide range of depths (10 to 40 m) and travelled along the bottom while searching for bottom-living fish such as butterfish Pholis gunnellus. In contrast, shags using sandy habitat frequently fed with conspecifics, foraged mainly at 2 depths (24 or 32 m) and spent the bottom phase of the dive probing into the sand with their bill, presumably to catch lesser sandeels Ammodytes marinus, the major prey item in the diet. This study highlights the flexible foraging strategy of European shags and illustrates how image and dive data can be combined to improve our understanding of the factors influencing the foraging success of benthic feeders.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it