Shorebird Abundance is Associated With Nutritional Quality of Intertidal Biofilm on the Fraser River Estuary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Dense congregations of shorebirds forage on tidal flats during long-distance migration, and their abundance is presumed to mirror the underlying ecological conditions. We quantified the nutritional content of intertidal biofilm (a thin layer of microalgae, bacteria, and other micro-organisms embedded in a mucilaginous matrix) to assess whether biofilm biomass and the abundance of macronutrients (lipid, protein, and carbohydrate) provide a measure of habitat quality for migrating shorebirds. We compared shorebird use, biofilm biomass, nutritional quality, and stable isotope signatures at two mudflats on the Fraser River estuary, British Columbia, Canada, during summer 2020 (southward migration) and spring 2021 (northward migration). The abundances of Western Sandpipers (Calidris mauri) and Dunlin (Calidris alpina) were consistently higher (6-100×) at Brunswick Point relative to the Iona Foreshore site during both migration periods. Biofilm biomass (chlorophyll a) was 2× higher at Brunswick Point than Iona Foreshore during southward migration, and was similar between sites during northward migration. Macronutrient content (lipid, protein, and carbohydrate) in intertidal biofilm was 1.4× to 3.8× higher at Brunswick Point than Iona Foreshore during both migration periods. Carbohydrate content was higher during southward migration at both tidal flats, whereas protein and lipid content at Iona Foreshore did not show significant differences between years/migration periods. Carbon and nitrogen stable isotope signatures during spring 2021 did not differ between the two sites, suggesting that nutrients had similar origins from marine and terrestrial inputs. The findings tie shorebird use to nutrients available in intertidal biofilm during migration periods.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".