Diet segregation between two colonies of little penguins <i>Eudyptula minor</i> in southeast Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We studied foraging segregation between two different sized colonies of little penguins Eudyptula minor with overlapping foraging areas in pre‐laying and incubation. We used stomach contents and stable isotope measurements of nitrogen (δ15N) and carbon (δ13C) in blood to examine differences in trophic position, prey‐size and nutritional values between the two colonies. Diet of little penguins at St Kilda (small colony) relied heavily on anchovy while at Phillip Island (large colony), the diet was more diverse and anchovies were larger than those consumed by St Kilda penguins. Higher δ15N values at St Kilda, differences in δ13C values and the prey composition provided further evidence of diet segregation between colonies. Penguins from each colony took anchovies from different cohorts and probably different stocks, although these sites are only 70 km apart. Differences in diet were not reflected in protein levels in the blood of penguins, suggesting that variation in prey between colonies was not related to differences in nutritional value of the diet. Anchovy is currently the only available prey to penguins throughout the year and its absence could have a negative impact on penguin food supply, particularly at St Kilda where the diet is dominated by this species. While it is difficult to establish whether diet segregation is caused by inter‐ or intra‐colony competition or spatial differences in foraging areas, we have shown that colonies with broadly overlapping foraging ranges could have significant differences in trophic position, diet composition and prey size while maintaining a diet of similar nutritional value.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".