Foraging ecology, fluctuating food availability and energetics of wintering brent geese
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Changing energy requirements and dramatic shifts in food availability are major factors driving behaviour and distribution of herbivores. We investigate this in wintering East Canadian High Arctic light‐bellied brent geese Branta bernicla hrota in Northern Ireland. They followed a sequential pattern of habitat use, feeding on intertidal Zostera spp. in autumn and early winter before moving to predominantly saltmarsh and farmland in late winter and early spring. Night‐time feeding occurred throughout and made a considerable contribution to the birds' daily energy budget, at times accounting for >50% of energy intake. Nocturnal feeding, however, is limited to the intertidal, possibly because of predation risk on terrestrial habitat, and increases with moonlight. The amount of Zostera spp., declined dramatically after the arrival of birds, predominantly, but not entirely, due to consumption by the birds. Birds gained fat reserves in the first 2 months but then this was dramatically lost as their major food source collapsed and their daily energy intake declined. Single birds consistently fared worse than paired birds and pairs with juveniles fared better than those without suggesting a benefit of having a family to compete for food. Many birds leave the Lough at this time of reduced Zostera spp. for other sea inlets in Ireland but some remain. Body condition of the latter gradually improved in early spring and reflected a heavy reliance on terrestrial habitats, particularly farmland, to meet the birds' daily energy requirements. However, even in the period immediately before migration to the breeding ground, the birds did not regain the amount of abdominal fatness observed in November. The dramatic changes in available food and requirements of the birds drive the major changes seen in foraging behaviour as the birds evade starvation in the wintering period.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".