Variation in foraging strategies of New Zealand albatross species within a dominance hierarchy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Co‐occurring species sharing a limited resource are thought to adopt alternative strategies to coexist. Here, we investigate four species of co‐occurring albatrosses in southern New Zealand that share food resources but differ in dominance status to test for variation in strategies to acquire supplemental food provided by ecotourism boats. We found evidence for distinct foraging strategies consistent with each species’ dominance rank. Buller’s albatross ( Thalassarche bulleri ) was the most subordinate species and frequently pursued scraps of fish on the periphery of the feeding flocks and avoided interacting with other species. Salvin’s albatross ( Thalassarche salvini ) and White‐capped albatross ( Thalassarche cauta ) were intermediate in dominance status; both had fast responses to fish and typically pursued the largest fish scraps, though T. cauta successfully stole fish while T. salvini did not. In contrast, Southern Royal albatross ( Diomedea epomophora ) was the dominant species and did not avoid interactions with other species and pursued the largest fish scraps but was slower to respond compared with some subordinates. Natural food sources approximate the scenarios seen behind ecotourism boats, suggesting that differences in foraging strategies are likely present without human intervention. Overall, our results suggest that foraging strategies associated with dominance hierarchies could help structure seabird communities.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".