Sources of Food Delivered to Ring-Billed, Herring and Great Black-Backed Gull Chicks in Marine Environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Beginning in the 1960s, Ring-billed Gulls' (Larus delawarensis) historic breeding range expanded from inland habitats and freshwater wetlands to marine sites in Atlantic North America. Adults winter on salt water but salt tolerance may entail costs (e.g. maintenance of salt glands) and favor reduced parental use of marine resources for feeding chicks. Diets of Ring-billed Gull chicks nesting on a marine island off Prince Edward Island, Canada, were investigated using soft regurgitant collection and stable isotope (δ13C and δ15N) analysis of both regurgitants and blood samples. Isotopic signatures in blood of chicks of Ring-billed and sympatrically-nesting Herring (L. argentatus) and Great Black-backed Gulls (L. marinus) were also compared. Regurgitants of Ring-billed Gull chicks contained freshwater/ terrestrial and marine invertebrates and fish. A stable isotope mixing model incorporating both δ13C and δ15N in chick regurgitants and blood estimated that 42.2% of Ring-billed Gull chick diet came from the marine environment, whereas estimates from blood for Herring and Great Black-backed Gulls were 43.6%, and 73.5%, respectively. Further, differences existed among gull species in estimates for dietary contribution from various food sources from marine and terrestrial/freshwater environments. Although Ring-billed Gulls can use marine food sources to feed their young, whether salt in marine food imposes a physiological cost on these young in comparison to young reared exclusively on non-marine foods is unclear.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".