Premium food for offspring? Black-backed Woodpecker (<i>Picoides arcticus</i>) diet during breeding season in eastern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowledge on the diet of the Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides arcticus Swainson, 1832) is fragmentary and relies on a limited number of studies. Gaps remain in our understanding of the plasticity of its diet, particularly in the eastern part of its range. The main objective of this study was to assess the diet of Black-backed Woodpeckers in burned and unburned habitats and among sexes and ages in Québec. We collected feces and fecal bags from unburned and burned habitats in the Central Laurentians ecoregion of the eastern boreal shield ecozone and assessed diets based on identified prey items. Buprestidae and Cerambycidae of the sub-family Lamiinae were the predominant prey for adult Black-backed Woodpeckers in burned habitats, and the Pythidae Pytho niger (Kirby, 1837) and Lamiinae were the most prevalent prey in unburned habitats. Lamiinae were the most predominant prey items provisioned to nestling in burned habitat, while P. niger was their predominant food in unburned habitat, followed by Cerambycidae (without Lamiinae) and Lamiinae. Our results present new insights into Black-backed Woodpecker diet where parents feed their offspring with the largest prey available, potentially providing higher fitness for their offspring. Furthermore, our study confirms that Black-backed Woodpeckers, at least in the eastern part of its range, are not restricted to feed on Lamiinae but are rather opportunistic in taking advantage from resource–pulse interactions provided by recently disturbed habitats, especially from recently burned habitats.
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 | 0.000 | 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".