MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404001029 · doi:10.1093/ornithology/ukae054

Prey selection by <i>Chordeiles minor</i> (Common Nighthawk) does not reflect differences in prey availability between breeding and nonbreeding grounds

2024· article· en· W4404001029 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Eliza D Stein, Néstor Fariña, Olga Villalba, Kristina L. Cockle, GASTÓN E. ZUBARÁN, Allison M. Snider, Diego Baldo, James A. Cox, Sabrina S. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Auk · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaLouisiana State University
KeywordsPredationSelection (genetic algorithm)Minor (academic)BiologyEcologyEvolutionary biologyZoologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Predators may adjust their diets to match their energy needs and food availability, but these adjustments have not been explored for migratory aerial insectivores outside of the breeding grounds. We found that Chordeiles minor (Common Nighthawk), a long-distance migrant and member of the rapidly declining aerial insectivore guild, exhibited similar levels of diet richness, diet diversity, and prey selectivity on the breeding and nonbreeding grounds, despite large differences in prey abundance. We examined the diets and prey communities of C. minor during 2 breeding seasons in Florida, USA, and 2 nonbreeding seasons in Corrientes Province, Argentina (2020 to 2022). We used DNA metabarcoding to identify insect prey in C. minor fecal samples, and we employed Malaise and UV light traps to assess abundance and composition of aerial insect prey communities. Abundance and richness of available prey were significantly higher on the nonbreeding grounds than on the breeding grounds. Even so, C. minor exhibited similar within-sample and within-population diet richness, Shannon and Simpson diversities, and prey preferences at both sites. Adults differed in their consumption of Lepidoptera between sites: adults on the nonbreeding grounds preferred Lepidoptera over all other orders, whereas adults on the breeding grounds consumed Lepidoptera less frequently than expected. We suggest that breeding adult C. minor may deliver Lepidoptera to their young instead of consuming this prey. At both sites, C. minor showed preference for Hemiptera and Hymenoptera–both large-bodied, nutrient-rich prey–suggesting that these generalist predators exhibit less diet flexibility than previously thought and thus may be vulnerable to changes in prey communities at multiple points in the annual cycle.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe AukSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207