Annual Variation in the Benefits of a Nesting Association Between Red Phalaropes (Phalaropus Fulicarius) and Sabine's Gulls (Xema Sabini)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract By nesting near aggressive birds, timid species can reap the benefits of aggressive nest defense while avoiding the costs. Red Phalaropes (Phalaropus fulicarius; hereafter “phalaropes”) typically nest in grass-sedge marshes, but nests have also been noted in rocky coastal habitats. We studied the reproductive ecology of phalaropes at East Bay, Southampton Island, Nunavut, to determine whether their use of coastal nest areas reflected a protective nesting association with an aggressive larid, the Sabine's Gull (Xema sabini; hereafter “gull”). From 2000 to 2002, we found and monitored 29 phalarope nests with gull nests nearby (≤150 m away) and 26 without gulls nearby. Coastal phalarope nests were nearer to gull nests than expected by chance. No habitat differences were detected between coastal areas with and without gull nests, but only three phalarope nests were found in coastal areas without gull nests. Thermistor probes inserted in phalarope nests revealed that incubators with gulls nearby behaved less cryptically, taking more frequent and longer incubation recesses. In human-approach experiments, phalaropes with gulls nearby flushed earlier than those without gulls. In 2000 and 2001, hatch success was 17–20% higher for phalaropes with gulls nearby, but these nests had lower success rates than those without nearby gulls in 2002. These gulls are able to defend their nests from avian predators only; in 2002, arctic foxes (Alopex lagopus) were abundant, and their primary prey, collared lemmings (Dicrostonyx torquatus), were scarce. We suggest that phalaropes select coastal areas near gulls, but that this association is beneficial to phalaropes only in years when egg predation by arctic foxes is low. Variation Annuelle des Bénéfices d'une Association pour Nicher entre Phalaropus fulicarius et Xema sabini
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".