Tradeoffs between food abundance and predation danger in spatial usage of a stopover site by western sandpipers, <i>Calidris mauri</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foragers use a variety of anti‐predator behaviours to increase their safety from predators. While foraging, animals should alter usage within or between sites to balance the benefits of feeding with the costs of predation. I tested how the distribution of food abundance and predation danger interacts to explain spatial usage (i.e. distance from shore) by migratory western sandpipers ( Calidris mauri ) at Boundary Bay, British Columbia, Canada, during northward and southward migrations. At Boundary Bay there are opposing spatial gradients in the distribution of food abundance and safety from predators. Predation danger for sandpipers is high near the shoreline where there is approach cover for falcons and decreases with distance from shore. Food abundance for sandpipers declines as distance from the shoreline increases. Food and danger attributes at Boundary Bay also differ temporally, such that food abundance is higher during southward migration, and predation danger is higher during northward migration. The spatial usage by western sandpipers balances the tradeoff between the opposing spatial gradients in food and safety. For both migratory periods spatial usage of the mudflat by sandpipers is highest at distances from the shoreline where food abundance and predation danger are intermediate. During the northward migration sandpiper usage is highest between 150 and 500 m from the shoreline, and during the southward migration sandpiper usage is highest between 100 and 600 m from the shoreline. Despite temporal differences in food and danger attributes, spatial usage of the site by sandpipers does not differ between migratory periods. Understanding how the distribution of food abundance and predation danger interact to affect the within site usage by shorebirds has important implications for assessments of site quality.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".