Foraging Behavior and Resource Partitioning by Diving Birds During Winter in Areas of Strong Tidal Currents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the distribution and behavior of 21 species of diving birds wintering in tidally active nearshore ocean off southern Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada. Using vessel surveys in one site and land-based observations at a second site, we found significant differences in the use of tidally affected water types among and within three foraging guilds (piscivores, plankton feeders and benthic invertebrate predators) and five families (Gaviidae, Podicipedidae, Phalacrocoracidae, Anatidae, Alcidae). The only abundant plankton feeder, Ancient Murrelets (Synthliboramphus antiquus), foraged more frequently than other birds in areas of deeper water (>10 m) with fast tidal flow and turbulence. Their abundance and diving activity were significantly higher at maximum tide flow than at slack tides. Piscivores used both slack water and moderate currents in a wide range of depths but, apart from alcids and Pelagic Cormorants (Phalacrocorax pelagicus), avoided areas of high current and turbulence. Pigeon Guillemots (Cepphus columba) had higher abundance at tide phases with maximum current, and within a channel with strong tidal flow they showed repetitive upstream flights interspersed with downstream diving bouts. Fish-eating mergansers and most diving ducks taking benthic invertebrates foraged in relatively shallow (<10 m) and slack water, and avoided turbulence. Six species representing all three guilds showed changes in the use of depth categories as tides changed between slack and maximum current, and four species changed their behavior in different depth categories. Although there was considerable overlap in foraging niches, the differences in distribution and behavior of guilds, families, and species of diving birds indicate a degree of resource partitioning within tidally-driven water categories during winter.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".