Foraging by Humboldt penguins (<i>Spheniscus humboldti</i>) during the chick-rearing period: general patterns, sex differences, and recommendations to reduce incidental catches in fishing nets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied the foraging behaviour of endangered Humboldt penguins (Spheniscus humboldti) to examine general foraging patterns, sex differences in foraging behaviour, and the reasons for incidental catches in fishing nets. Humboldt penguins foraged diurnally and typically made short, shallow dives within 30 m of the surface. Males and females made overnight (lasting 25.8 ± 3.4 h; mean ± SD) and day (10.4 ± 2.0 h) trips when they departed the colony to forage. Overnight trips were more common (68.2% of all trips) and were associated with a significantly greater amount of foraging time. Males dived to greater maximum depths than females but did not differ in other diving parameters, including foraging time, foraging effort, and proportions of day and overnight trips made. Adults may maintain their body condition during chick rearing by making a mixture of overnight and day trips. The two foraging periods observed during overnight trips may function to feed both the adults and the chicks, whereas the single period observed during day trips may function to accommodate the rate of provisioning required by the chicks. We suggest that both males and females would be protected from incidental catches in fishing nets if commercial fisheries avoided setting surface nets at night and setting nets between 0 and 30 m depth during the day in areas where penguins forage and transit.
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 | 0.000 | 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".