MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091869351 · doi:10.1139/z06-202

Isotopic (δ<sup>15</sup>N and δ<sup>13</sup>C) evidence for intersexual foraging differences and temporal variation in habitat use in waved albatrosses

2007· article· en· W2091869351 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jill A. Awkerman, Keith A. Hobson, David J. Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIsotope Analysis in Ecology
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersNational Park Service
KeywordsForagingBiologyTrophic levelPelagic zonePredationIntraspecific competitionEcologyUria aalgeZoologySeasonal breederSeabirdIsotope analysisUpwellingCharadriiformesHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Waved albatrosses ( Phoebastria irrorata Salvin, 1883) forage close to their breeding grounds on Isla Española, Galápagos, during the short chick-brooding stage and make long trips to the Peruvian upwelling during incubation and chick rearing. Previous studies have suggested foraging segregation by sex: females spend more time searching than males do while foraging in the Galápagos Marine Reserve (GMR), and band recoveries suggest higher bycatch vulnerability of males in the Peruvian upwelling. We used stable isotope analysis (δ 15 N and δ 13 C) of whole blood of adult male and female albatrosses to test for intraspecific foraging segregation in this sexually dimorphic species. Analysis of serial blood samples revealed higher δ 15 N values in males, suggesting consumption of prey items of higher trophic level. We also detected seasonal variation in foraging ecology, with higher δ 15 N values at the beginning of the breeding season. Sex and regional differences in δ 13 C values were not significant, reflecting primarily pelagic foraging sites of both sexes, both in the GMR and the Peruvian upwelling. Our results provide evidence of trophic segregation, suggestive of competitive exclusion, and novel information on marine isoscape values in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations42
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicIsotope Analysis in EcologyFrench-language works237,207