Foraging costs and accessibility as determinants of giving-up densities in a swan-pondweed system

We measured the patch use behaviour of Bewick's swans (Cygnus columbianus bewickii) feeding on below ground tubers of fennel pondweed (Potamogeton pectinatus). We compared the swans' attack rates, foraging costs and giving-up densities (GUDs) in natural and experimental food patches that differed in water depth. Unlike most studies that attribute habitat-specific differences in GUDs to predation risk, food quality or foraging substrate, we quantified the relative importance of energetic costs and accessibility. Accessibility is defined as the extent to which the animal's morphology restricts its harvest of all food items within a food patch. Patch use behaviours were measured at shallow (ca 0.4 m) and deep (ca 0.6 m) water depths on sandy sediments. In a laboratory foraging experiment, when harvesting food patches, the swan's attack rate (m3 s1) did not differ between depths. In deep water the energetic costs of surfacing, feeding and trampling were 1.13 to 1.21 times higher than in shallow water with a tendency to spend relatively more time trampling, the most expensive activity. Taking time allocation as measured in the field into account, foraging in deep water was 1.26 times as expensive as in shallow water. In the lake the GUD in shallow water was on average 12.9 g m2. If differences in energetic costs were the only factor determining differences in GUDs, then the deep water GUD should be 14.2 g m2. Instead, the mean GUD in deep water was 20.2 g m2, and therefore energetic costs explain just 18% of the difference in GUDs. At deep sites, 24% of tuber biomass was estimated to be out of reach, and we calculated a maximum accessible foraging depth of 0.86 m. This is close to the published 0.84 m based on body measurements. A laboratory experiment with food offered at a depth of 0.89 m confirmed that it was just out of reach. The agreement between calculated and observed maximum accessible foraging depths suggests that accessibility largely explains the remaining difference in GUDs with depth, and it confirms the existence of partial prey refuges in this system.

Foraging costs and accessibility as determinants of giving-up densities in a swan-pondweed system

We measured the patch use behaviour of Bewick's swans (Cygnus columbianus bewickii) feeding on below ground tubers of fennel pondweed (Potamogeton pectinatus). We compared the swans' attack rates, foraging costs and giving-up densities (GUDs) in natural and experimental food patches that differed in water depth. Unlike most studies that attribute habitat-specific differences in GUDs to predation risk, food quality or foraging substrate, we quantified the relative importance of energetic costs and accessibility. Accessibility is defined as the extent to which the animal's morphology restricts its harvest of all food items within a food patch. Patch use behaviours were measured at shallow (ca 0.4 m) and deep (ca 0.6 m) water depths on sandy sediments. In a laboratory foraging experiment, when harvesting food patches, the swan's attack rate (m3 s¿1) did not differ between depths. In deep water the energetic costs of surfacing, feeding and trampling were 1.13 to 1.21 times higher than in shallow water with a tendency to spend relatively more time trampling, the most expensive activity. Taking time allocation as measured in the field into account, foraging in deep water was 1.26 times as expensive as in shallow water. In the lake the GUD in shallow water was on average 12.9 g m¿2. If differences in energetic costs were the only factor determining differences in GUDs, then the deep water GUD should be 14.2 g m¿2. Instead, the mean GUD in deep water was 20.2 g m¿2, and therefore energetic costs explain just 18% of the difference in GUDs. At deep sites, 24% of tuber biomass was estimated to be out of reach, and we calculated a maximum accessible foraging depth of 0.86 m. This is close to the published 0.84 m based on body measurements. A laboratory experiment with food offered at a depth of 0.89 m confirmed that it was just out of reach. The agreement between calculated and observed maximum accessible foraging depths suggests that accessibility largely explains the remaining difference in GUDs with depth, and it confirms the existence of partial prey refuges in this syste

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical science. © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press