Different Patterns of Parental Effort During Chick-Rearing by Female and Male Thick-Billed Murres (Uria Lomvia) at a Low-Arctic Colony
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Using temperature loggers and radio telemetry, foraging and brooding behaviors of female and male Thick-billed Murres (Uria lomvia) were measured during chick rearing at the Gannet Islands, Labrador, to quantify parental roles during this crucial stage of reproduction. We recorded 2,725 foraging dives by 10 females and 7 males during 1,416 bird-hours of monitoring. Our study birds made between 21 and 107 dives per day between 0327 and 2220 hours, with 54% of females' dives and <1% of males' dives occurring in conditions of low illumination between sunset and sunrise. Males foraged mostly at midday and, overall, made longer and presumably deeper dives (mean duration 116.2 ± 37.6 s) than females (mean duration 84.1 ± 46.0 s). The maximum dive duration recorded was 240 s. Final dives of foraging trips were inferred to include dives during which chick meals (∼95% by number daubed shanny [Lumpenus maculatus]) were obtained. Those dives (mean duration 134.0 ± 36.1 s) and dives in final diving bouts prior to return to the breeding site (mean duration 139.1 ± 40.2 s) averaged longer than other dives, and longer in males than in females, but there was no difference between the sexes in their daily frequency. The modal travel time from the last dive in a feeding trip to arrival at the breeding site was 8 min (no difference between sexes), which represents a maximum travel distance at 65 km h−1 of 8.7 km, suggesting that foraging occurred close to the colony. Females spent 9 h day−1 (38% of day, mostly diurnal brooding) at breeding sites whereas males spent 16 h (67% of day, mostly nocturnal brooding). Taken together, these data indicated drastic differences in patterns of foraging and brooding behavior between male and female Thick-billed Murres, but suggest that individual and intercolony variation were also significant.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".