Biogenic structures produced by foraging birds in marginal marine and marginal lacustrine settings: implications for the rock record
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This contribution identifies biogenic structures created by modern birds foraging in marginal aquatic settings and provides descriptions to facilitate their identification in the rock record. Biogenic structures related to foraging can be separated into those created by bills, such as peck marks, probe marks, gape marks, dabble marks, sweep marks, and bill-stir marks. Biogenic structures created by feet include stir tracks and paddle pits. Peck marks are created during visual foraging and result in shallow, solitary or paired, random or clustered, circular to subcircular pits and grooves. Probe marks are created during tactile foraging but are similar to peck marks, differing solely in their greater depth of penetration. Gape marks are formed when birds open their bill in the sediment resulting in elongated grooves. Dabble marks are larger ovoid divots emplaced by broad-billed waterbirds in subaqueous settings. Bill stirring occurs when a bird swishes its bill in a narrow trend on the sediment surface. Sweep marks are arcuate grooves emplaced in the sediment when long-billed birds forage by sweeping their bill side-to-side across the sediment–water interface. Birds shuffling their feet in soft sediment is termed ‘foot-stirring’ and results in overprinted, side-by-side trackways. Foot-paddling dewaters the sediment and produces various pit morphologies with massive fill. Trackways emplaced during foraging are commonly characterized by variable stride length, stutter steps, and sudden changes in direction. ‘Trample grounds’ are produced by gregarious foraging flocks of birds. It is anticipated that illustrating and describing the structures produced by these behaviors will facilitate recognition of these commonly overlooked traces.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".