Resource defense and monopolization in a marked population of ruby‐throated hummingbirds (<i><scp>A</scp>rchilochus colubris</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resource defense behavior is often explained by the spatial and temporal distribution of resources. However, factors such as competition, habitat complexity, and individual space use may also affect the capacity of individuals to defend and monopolize resources. Yet, studies frequently focus on one or two factors, overlooking the complexity found in natural settings. Here, we addressed defense and monopolization of nectar feeders in a population of free-ranging ruby-throated hummingbirds marked with passive integrated transponder (PIT tags). Our study system consisted of a 44 ha systematic grid of 45 feeders equipped with PIT tag detectors recording every visit made at feeders. We modeled the number of visits by competitors (NVC) at feeders in response to space use by a focal individual potentially defending a feeder, number of competitors, nectar sucrose concentration, and habitat visibility. Individuals who were more concentrated at certain feeders on a given day and who were more stable in their use of the grid throughout the season gained higher exclusivity in the use of those feeders on that day, especially for males competing against males. The level of spatial concentration at feeders and its negative effect on NVC was, however, highly variable among individuals, suggesting a continuum in resource defense strategies. Although the apparent capacity to defend feeders was not affected by competition or nectar sucrose concentration, the level of monopolization decreased with increasing number of competitors and higher nectar quality. Defense was enhanced by visibility near feeders, but only in forested habitats. The reverse effect of visibility in open habitats was more difficult to interpret as it was probably confounded by perch availability, from which a bird can defend its feeder. Our study is among the first to quantify the joint use of food resource by overlapping individuals unconstrained in their use of space. Our results show the importance of accounting for variation in space use among individuals as it translated into varying levels of defense and monopolization of feeders regardless of food resource distribution.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".