Context-dependent foraging by seed-eating birds does not necessarily mean low ecological predictability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flexibility of foraging behaviour affects our capacity to predict ecological outputs such as population responses to habitat change. Some birds forage following rules of absolute value of the food item (i.e., absolute valuation). Their realized diet is strongly correlated with the profitability of the food item and it is predictable. Consumers, however, do not always follow absolute rules. Opportunistic foragers adjust food consumption based on the availability of the food item. Their diet is still predictable but more elusive. Relativistic or context-dependent foragers change the ranks of food preferences depending on the presence of alternative food options in the choice set. Predicting their contingent diet is particularly difficult. We tested if the context of seed availability affects foraging decisions of three seed-eating bird species (the Rufous-collared Sparrow (Zonotrichia capensis (Statius Muller, 1776)), the Many-colored Chaco Finch (Saltatricula multicolor (Burmeister, 1860)), and the Common Diuca Finch (Diuca diuca (Molina, 1782))) using choice experiments aimed at detecting if seed preferences for two types of target seeds changed according to context. Birds showed very similar rankings of preferences for target seeds; however, preferences for attractive food items were not fixed but often increased in less valuable contexts. Although results imply some degree of context-dependent behaviour, predictability of bird diet was preserved because the ranking of preferences remained mostly unchanged between contexts (and among bird species), and the higher consumption of target grass seeds in a less attractive context was widely expected from the intrinsic properties of the seeds.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".