Diet shifts of lesser scaup are consistent with the spring condition hypothesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared diets of lesser scaup ( Aythya affinis (Eyton, 1838)) in the springs of 2000 and 2001 to those reported in the 1970s and the 1980s to determine whether forage quality has declined as predicted by the spring condition hypothesis. In Minnesota, we found that the current aggregate percentage of Amphipoda (an important food item) in lesser scaup diets was 94% lower than that reported from the same locations in the 1980s. Current mean individual prey mass of Amphipoda and Bivalvia in Minnesota were 86.6% and 85.1% lower than historical levels, respectively. In Manitoba, current aggregate percentages of Trichoptera and Chaoboridae in lesser scaup diets (1% and 0%, respectively) were lower than those reported from the same location in the 1970s (14% and 2%, respectively), whereas the percentage of Chironomidae (40%) was higher than that of historical levels (19%). Current mean individual prey mass of all insects, seeds,Chironomidae, and Zygoptera in Manitoba were 63.5%, 65.4%, 44.1%, and 44.9% lower than those of historical levels, respectively. The observed dietary shift from Amphipoda to less nutritious prey in Minnesota, coupled with lower mean individual prey mass in both locations, likely constitutes lower forage quality in lesser scaup diets, which is consistent with the spring condition hypothesis.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".