Heightened heart rate but similar flight responses to evolved versus recent predators in an Arctic seabird
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predator-prey dynamics in the Arctic are being altered with changing sea ice phenology. The increasing frequency of predation on colonial nesting seabirds and their eggs by the polar bear (Ursus maritimus) is a consequence of bears shifting to terrestrial food resources through a shortened seal-hunting season. We examined antipredator responses in a colony of nesting Common Eiders (Somateria mollissima) on East Bay Island, Nunavut, Canada, which is exposed to established nest predators, such as arctic fox (Vulpes lagopus), but also to recent increases in polar bear nest predation due to the bears’ lost on-ice hunting opportunities. Given eiders’ limited eco-evolutionary experience with bears, we aimed to experimentally contrast eider responses to the recent predation pressure by polar bears to those induced by their more traditional mammalian predator, the arctic fox. Our goal was to characterize whether this population of eiders was vulnerable to a changing predator regime. Using simulated approaches of visual stimuli of both predator types, we measured eider heart rate and flight initiation distance as physiological and behavioral metrics, respectively, to characterize the perceived risk of and subsequent response to imminent threat posed by these two predators that differ in historical encounter rates. Eider heart rates were more responsive to impending visual cues of arctic foxes compared to polar bears, but birds responded behaviorally to all simulated threats with similar flight initiation distances. Results suggest eiders may not perceive the full risk that bears pose as egg and adult predators, and are therefore expected to suffer negative fitness consequences from this ongoing and increasing interaction. Eiders may therefore require conservation intervention to aid in their management.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".