Foraging patterns vary with the degree of sociality among Common Loon (<i>Gavia immer</i>) overwintering on a freshwater lake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about the behaviour of Common Loon (Gavia immer) during the critical overwintering period, let alone the behaviour of the small, but increasing number of loons that overwinter on freshwater lakes in North America. We examined the diurnal time-activity budgets of Common Loon overwintering on a large reservoir in northwest South Carolina between 2018 and 2020. Similar to previous studies of breeding individuals and individuals that overwinter in marine waters, loons (n = 132) overwintering on this reservoir spent most of their time (52%) foraging. However, we found distinct differences in the activity budgets of individuals associated with their degree of sociality. Solitary birds (individuals spending 0–20% of time within 20 m of conspecifics) spent significantly more time foraging than did those that were either loosely-social (>20–<70% of time within 20 m of conspecifics) or strongly-social (70–100% of time). Although solitary loons made as many foraging dives as social birds, their dives were much longer, likely reflecting dives for larger predatory fish. In contrast, social individuals made much shorter, shallower dives, often foraging on shallower baitfish that they appear to pursue to the water surface and consume collectively. Such findings add to our understanding of loon winter behaviour and raise interesting questions regarding social behaviour and the short- and long-term trade-offs associated with social foraging in this species.
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".