DOES KLEPTOPARASITISM BY GLAUCOUS-WINGED GULLS LIMIT THE REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS OF TUFTED PUFFINS?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interspecific kleptoparasitism (food stealing) occurs in many seabird species and can sometimes significantly affect host individuals and populations. We investigated effects of kleptoparasitism by Glaucous-winged Gulls (Larus glaucescens) on a population of Tufted Puffins (Fratercula cirrhata) in which almost all chicks die before fledging in some years. Rates of kleptoparasitism were estimated during two seasons and compared with several spatial and temporal factors that have been predicted to influence kleptoparasitism rates both within and among seasons. Kleptoparasitism rates increased from 2% in the first year to 19% in the second, whereas puffin fledging success declined precipitously from 81% in the first year to 11% in the second. Within years, kleptoparasitism rates increased with number of puffins returning with fish, decreased during fair weather, and were unaffected by tidal height. Spatially, those rates increased with puffin burrow density and declined with angle of the nesting slope. Gull kleptoparasitism success increased during foul weather and at higher puffin nesting elevations. Despite those associations, survival of puffin chicks was not influenced by kleptoparasitism activity near their nests although it increased with a combination of low elevation and high slope at the nesting burrow. Neither kleptoparasitism nor predation by gulls were exceptional relative to other seabird colonies and they were unlikely to cause reproductive failures that characterize puffins at that site. Other factors, particularly food shortages at sea, merit further attention in explaining those failures.
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".