The foraging decisions of a central place foraging seabird in response to fluctuations in local prey conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract During reproduction, seabirds need to balance the demands of self‐ and offspring‐provisioning within the constraints imposed by central place foraging. To assess behavioral adjustments and tolerances to these constraints, we studied the feeding tactics and reproductive success of common murres (also known as common guillemots) Uria aalge, at their largest and most offshore colony (Funk Island) where parents travel long distances to deliver a single capelin Mallotus villosus to their chicks. We assessed changes in the distance murres traveled from the colony, their proximate foraging locations and prey size choice during two successive years in which capelin exhibited an order of magnitude decrease in density and a shift from aggregated (2004) to dispersed (2005) distributions. When capelin availability was low (2005), parental murres increased their maximum foraging distances by 35% (60 to 81 km) and delivered significantly larger capelin to chicks, as predicted by central place foraging theory. Murres preferred large (>140 mm) relative to small capelin (100–140 mm) in both years, but unexpectedly this preference increased as the relative density of large capelin decreased. We conclude that single prey‐loading murres target larger capelin during long foraging trips as parents are ‘forced’ to select the best prey for their offspring. Low fledgling masses suggest also that increased foraging time when capelin is scarce may come at a cost to the chicks (i.e. fewer meals per day). Murres at this colony may be functioning near physiological limits above which further or sustained adjustments in foraging effort could compromise the life‐time reproductive success of this long‐lived seabird.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".