MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2174563655 · doi:10.1650/7147

GYRFALCON DIET IN CENTRAL WEST GREENLAND DURING THE NESTING PERIOD

2003· article· en· W2174563655 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Travis L. Booms, Mark R. Fuller

Bibliographic record

VenueOrnithological Applications · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of MinnesotaPeregrine FundSmithsonian InstitutionBrigham Young UniversitySandpiper TechnologiesBoise State UniversityArctic Institute of North AmericaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsLagopusPredationArcticWaterfowlGeographyNest (protein structural motif)Arctic foxZoologyBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We studied food habits of Gyrfalcons (Falco rusticolus) nesting in central west Greenland in 2000 and 2001 using three sources of data: time-lapse video (3 nests), prey remains (22 nests), and regurgitated pellets (19 nests). These sources provided different information describing the diet during the nesting period. Gyrfalcons relied heavily on Rock Ptarmigan (Lagopus mutus) and arctic hares (Lepus arcticus). Combined, these species contributed 79–91% of the total diet, depending on the data used. Passerines were the third most important group. Prey less common in the diet included waterfowl, arctic fox pups (Alopex lagopus), shorebirds, gulls, alcids, and falcons. All Rock Ptarmigan were adults, and all but one arctic hare were young of the year. Most passerines were fledglings. We observed two diet shifts, first from a preponderance of ptarmigan to hares in mid-June, and second to passerines in late June. The video-monitored Gyrfalcons consumed 94–110 kg of food per nest during the nestling period, higher than previously estimated. Using a combination of video, prey remains, and pellets was important to accurately document Gyrfalcon diet, and we strongly recommend using time-lapse video in future diet studies to identify biases in prey remains and pellet data. Dieta de Falco rusticolus durante el Período de Nidificación en el Centro-Oeste de Groenlandia Resumen. Estudiamos los hábitos alimenticios de Falco rusticolus durante la época de nidificación en el centro-oeste de Groenlandia durante los años 2000 y 2001. Utilizamos tres fuentes de datos: registros en lapsos de tiempo con cámaras de video (nidos en los árboles), restos de presas (22 nidos) y egagrópilas (19 nidos). Esto permitió describir la dieta durante el período de nidificación con base en la información diferente provista por cada fuente. F. rusticolus dependió fuertemente de las presas Lagopus mutus y Lepus arcticus. En forma combinada, estas dos especies contribuyeron en un 79–91% de la dieta total, dependiendo de los datos utilizados para el análisis. Las aves paserinas fueron el tercer grupo más importante. Las presas menos comunes presentes en la dieta fueron aves acuáticas, cachorros de zorro (Alopex lagopus), aves playeras, gaviotas, álcidos y halcones. Todos los individuos de L. mutus fueron adultos y todos excepto un individuo de L. arcticus fueron juveniles nacidos ese mismo año. La mayoría de las aves paserinas fueron volantones. Observamos dos cambios en la dieta, primero de preponderancia de L. mutus a L. articus a mediados de junio, y el segundo a aves paserinas a fines de junio. Los individuos monitoreados con cámaras de video consumieron 94–110 kg de alimento por nido durante el período con polluelos, una cantidad mayor a la estimada previamente. La utilización combinada de registros de cámaras de video, restos de presas y egagrópilas fue importante para documentar la dieta de F. rusticolus con precisión, y recomendamos fuertemente utilizar cámaras de video con registros intermitentes en estudios futuros sobre la dieta para poder identificar los sesgos en los datos obtenidos a partir de restos de presas y egagrópilas.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrnithological ApplicationsSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207