Variation in tiger salamander density within prairie potholes affects aquatic bird foraging behaviour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through competitive asymmetry, coexisting fish populations can alter aquatic bird distributions and reduce the reproductive success of their offspring. Gray tiger salamanders (Ambystoma mavortium diaboli Dunn, 1940) may function similarly in fishless prairie potholes. To test the hypothesis that tiger salamanders compete with aquatic birds (including ducks, grebes, and American Coot (Fulica americana J.F. Gmelin, 1789)) for prey resources during the breeding season, 16 potholes were divided into halves by an impermeable plastic barrier and tiger salamander densities were increased or decreased on opposite sides of the barrier. From late May until early July, aquatic invertebrates were sampled from both sides of the divider and the foraging activities of birds were observed. Invertebrate samples revealed that densities of most macroinvertebrate taxa were lower in the halves of potholes with relatively higher densities of tiger salamanders. On average, bird occupancy was evenly distributed on either side of the divider. In contrast, birds spent 65% more time foraging where tiger salamander densities were low (71.2% of total time observed) than where they were high (46.2% of total time observed). The birds most responsive to differences in tiger salamander density and food availability were dabbling ducks, followed by American Coot and diving ducks. This ranking corresponds to the degree of dietary overlap documented between tiger salamanders and aquatic bird assemblages in the study area.
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 | 0.000 | 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".