Ecological segregation among Thick-billed Murres (<i>Uria</i> <i>lomvia</i>) and Common Murres (<i>Uria</i><i> aalge</i>) in the Northwest Atlantic persists through the nonbreeding season
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To study the influence of inter- and intra-specific interactions on patterns of ecological segregation in nonbreeding habitat, we used geolocators to track year-round movements of congeneric and partially sympatric Thick-billed Murres (Uria lomvia (L., 1758)) and Common Murres (Uria aalge (Pontoppidan, 1763)) from seven Canadian colonies during 2007–2011. Locations from 142 individuals were (i) examined for species- and colony-specific spatiotemporal patterns, (ii) mapped with environmental data, and (iii) used to delineate core wintering areas. Compared with Common Murres, Thick-billed Murres dispersed across a wider range of latitudes and environments, had larger winter ranges, and showed greater variation in seasonal timing of movements. These interspecific differences were consistent at two scales: among colonies spanning a wide latitudinal range and at a sympatric colony. Intraspecifically, nonbreeding ecological segregation was more pronounced among colonies of Thick-billed Murres than of Common Murres: colonies of Thick-billed Murres tended to follow distinct movement patterns and segregate by latitude, whereas colonies of Common Murres segregated very little; moreover, the extent of segregation was more variable among Thick-billed Murres than Common Murres. For Thick-billed Murres, rather than complete divergence of winter ecological niche from Common Murres, we found a “widening” of an overlapping niche. This strategy of increased movement flexibility may enable Thick-billed Murres to mitigate competition both intra- and inter-specifically; we propose this movement strategy may have played a role in species divergence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".