Resource partitioning among avian predators of the Arctic tundra
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interspecific competition can play a key role in structuring ecological communities. The Arctic tundra is a low productivity ecosystem supporting simple food webs, but several predators often feed on the same prey species, lemmings, known for their large-amplitude population fluctuations. We examined mechanisms involved in reducing intra-guild competition and allowing coexistence of four avian predators (snowy owls, glaucous gulls, rough-legged hawks and long-tailed jaegers) feeding on a pulsed resource (brown and collared lemmings). We compared the size and species of prey consumed by predators to see if resource partitioning occurred. We also verified if spatial segregation in nesting areas could be another mechanism allowing coexistence. Finally, we tested if the absence of the snowy owl, a dominant and irruptive species, triggered a competitive release on the smallest predator, the jaeger, with respect to prey size and nesting area used. We monitored the breeding of predators and lemming abundance over a 14-year period on Bylot Island, Canada. We mapped their nesting sites and collected regurgitation pellets to recover lemming mandibles, which were used to infer prey species and size. The size of lemmings consumed varied among species with the largest predators consuming the largest lemmings and the smallest predators consuming the smallest lemmings. All predators consumed more collared than brown lemmings compared to their availability although owls and jaegers consumed relatively more brown lemmings compared to gulls and hawks. Jaegers consumed larger lemmings in the absence of owls than in their presence, suggestive of a short-term competitive release. We found moderate to low overlap in nesting areas among predators and no evidence of their expansion in the absence of owls, suggesting that spatial distribution is caused by species-specific habitat preferences. The main mechanism to partition food resources among these avian predators is spatial segregation, and secondarily prey size and species. However, we found evidence that food competition is still present and leads to a niche shift in the smallest predator of the guild. Interspecific competition may thus be a pervasive force in simple, low productivity food webs characterized by pulsed resources.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".