The Effects of Seasonal Flooding on Seed Availability for Spring Migrating Waterfowl
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: We hypothesized the seed biomass available to migrating waterfowl would be higher in spring‐ versus fall‐flooded wetlands. To test this hypothesis we conducted an experiment using 5 pairs of wetland impoundments in northern Missouri, USA (2000‐2002). We strategically assigned one impoundment of each pair to either a fall or spring treatment group. We estimated seed biomass in fall and in spring by clipping seed heads and collecting soil cores at 20 random locations within each impoundment. We placed exclosures near each fall sample site in spring‐flooded impoundments to estimate seed loss from granivorous birds and rodents. Despite similar biomass in fall between treatments ( P = 0.64), overwinter seed loss was greater in fall‐flooded (79%; 1,324 ± 195 kg/ha) than in spring‐flooded (31%; 653 6 130 kg/ha) impoundments ( P = 0.009). Considering barnyard grass or millet ( Echinochloa spp.) only, seed loss was higher in fall‐flooded than in spring‐flooded impoundments ( P = 0.05). Spring biomass estimates were similar inside versus outside exclosures (P = 0.63) indicating loss to granivorous birds and rodents was limited. Our results suggest that fall flooding reduces seed availability for spring migrating waterfowl. We recommend spring flooding be used in areas where impoundment water levels can be manipulated to increase seed availability for spring migrating waterfowl.
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 | 0.002 | 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".