Stable isotopes reveal differences in diet among reed bunting subspecies that vary in bill size
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reed bunting Emberiza schoeniclus subspecies vary considerably in bill size and shape and seem to be at an early stage of speciation, in which bill might be indirectly causing reproductive isolation. Hence, we evaluated whether bill size, as well as age and sex, are associated with foraging niche in three west European subspecies of reed bunting: the thin‐billed schoeniclus , the intermediate‐billed lusitanica and the thick‐billed witherbyi . Blood sampling was undertaken at three sites in southwest Europe during the winter (when these subspecies co‐occur), and stable isotope analyses (carbon and nitrogen) were performed to assess their foraging niches. Stable isotope analyses of potential food items confirmed uniform baseline isotopic composition among sites. schoeniclus showed a significantly broader isotopic niche than lusitanica and witherbyi , which seemed otherwise similar despite the fact that witherbyi is more divergent in bill traits. Stable isotope ratios were consistent with the latter two subspecies feeding on C3‐plant‐feeding insects, whereas schoeniclus diet also included C4 plant material. Despite its lower sexual dimorphism, sex and age differences were found only in schoeniclus , but these differences vary between locations in a complex manner. Our results suggest that bill size and shape differentiated between northern, migratory and southern, resident subspecies as a consequence of natural selection through competition during the winter, which is now reflected in isotopic niche divergence between subspecies. The potential roles of sexual selection, reed thickness and summer temperature on the difference in bill size (and greater sexual dimorphism) between lusitanica and witherbyi are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".