Diet and prey size selectivity of Semipalmated Plovers (<i>Charadrius semipalmatus</i>) in coastal Georgia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined diet of nonbreeding Semipalmated Plovers (Charadrius semipalmatus Bonaparte, 1825) in the Cumberland Island estuary, Georgia, USA, through fecal sample analysis. We also examined prey size selectivity by Semipalmated Plovers for the most common prey item found in the fecal samples, which are polychaetes in the family Nereidae (= Nereididae). We compared the size distribution of polychaetes in Semipalmated Plover fecal samples from salt marshes and mudflats with the size distribution of polychaetes sampled from the two habitats. Semipalmated Plovers foraging on mudflats had less variable diets than those foraging on salt marshes, although the mean number of prey per Semipalmated Plover fecal sample was similar between the two habitats. Size selectivity by Semipalmated Plovers of nereid (= nereidid) polychaetes varied as a function of habitat, with Semipalmated Plovers eating larger polychaetes in salt marshes than in mudflats, although in both habitats Semipalmated Plovers avoided extremely small and (or) large ones. Semipalmated Plovers took fewer of the available prey groups and were more selective in sizes of the dominant prey group on mudflats, where prey densities were the highest. These observations are consistent with predictions from optimal foraging theory.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".