FEEDING ECOLOGY OF CANADA GEESE (BRANTA CANADENSIS INTERIOR) IN SUB-ARCTIC INLAND TUNDRA DURING BROOD-REARING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The diet of adult Canada Geese (Branta canadensis interior) and their goslings was determined during the brood-rearing season in a freshwater tundra habitat using esophageal contents from 25 adult females, 27 adult males, and 59 goslings. Habitat use by geese and the availability and quality of aboveground biomass in wet sedge meadows and around ponds in lichen-heath tundra were also evaluated throughout the summer. During the first four weeks of brood-rearing, adult Canada Geese ate primarily graminoids (>65%), especially leaves of the short form of Carex aquatilis and Eriophorum spp., which had the highest nitrogen concentration (2.5–3.5%). Although graminoids were also important for goslings, they consumed a greater variety of other plant species (68%) than adults, especially in the first two weeks, possibly because of their inexperience. Late in the brood-rearing period, as the nitrogen concentration of graminoid plants declined, adults shifted to a diet composed mainly of berries (>40%, mostly Empetrum nigrum). At that time, goslings consumed fewer berries (24%) and maintained a higher proportion of nitrogen-rich plants in their diet (53% leaves, mostly graminoids) than adults, presumably to complete their growth. Plant species consumed by geese over the summer indicated a preference for high-quality plants (i.e. those with a high nitrogen concentration). Consequently, wet sedge meadow, the habitat that offered plant species of highest quality, was the habitat most heavily used throughout the summer, particularly around peak hatch. Goose grazing had no effect on seasonal production of aboveground biomass of graminoids, probably because of the relatively low density of the goose population. Écologie alimentaire de Branta canadensis interior pendant la période d’élevage des jeunes dans un milieu d’eau douce sub-arctique
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".