The embarrassment of riches: agricultural food subsidies, high goose numbers, and loss of Arctic wetlands a continuing saga
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Agriculture has provided a nutritional subsidy to the Anatidae (swans, geese, ducks), which has affected their trophic relationships and the Arctic wetlands where they breed. The Mid-Continent Population of lesser snow geese, which breeds in the Canadian Arctic and which traditionally wintered in the coastal marshes of the Gulf States, now feeds in agricultural landscapes. The geometric growth of this population since 1970 is coincident with increased application of nitrogen to farmland and high crop yields. Widespread availability of agricultural foods allows the birds to meet much of their energy demand for migration and reproduction. Their migration conforms to a stepping stone model linked to land use, but feeding also takes place upon arrival on the Arctic breeding grounds. High bird numbers have dramatically affected coastal marshes of the Canadian Arctic. Foraging has produced alternative stable states characterized by sward destruction and near irreversible changes in soil properties of exposed sediments. Locally, this loss of resilience has adversely affected different groups of organisms, resulting in an apparent trophic cascade. A spring hunt was introduced in 1999 in an attempt to check population growth. The current annual cull is now thought to be higher than the replacement rate. Much of the decline of the Mid-Continent Population is probably linked to shooting, but the harassment of birds that fail to acquire sufficient food for reproduction may contribute. The agricultural food subsidy has led to a mismatch between this avian herbivore and its environment a consequence of migratory connectivity that links wintering and breeding grounds. Key words: agricultural crops, lesser snow geese, migratory connectivity, Arctic coastal marshes, grubbing, hypersalinity, the spring hunt.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".