Does Climate or Habitat Affect the Frequency of Cooperative Brood Rearing in Canada Geese?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada geese ( Branta canadensis ) are unusual because individuals use either of two different brood‐rearing behaviors: cooperative broods (two or more merged broods attended by more than three parents) or two‐parent families. We tested whether cooperative broods form in response to habitat or climatic conditions by examining variation in cooperative brood frequencies among Canada geese nesting in Connecticut from 1982 to 1996. Percent of goslings raised in cooperative broods ranged from 0 to 100% at a given site in different years, but the pattern of annual variation was different at each site. The sites were in close proximity to each other and had similar climates; thus, the differences in annual variation among sites was not likely to be a response to climatic conditions. Cooperative brood frequencies also varied among sites in each individual year, but sites with the most gang brooding in one year often had the least the next. Such would not be expected if gang brooding occurred in response to non‐ephemeral habitat characteristics. Sites where gang brooding occurred and where it did not have similar food resources and predation risks. These findings failed to support the hypotheses that gang broods form in response to food competition or predation. Sites where gang broods occurred had more parent geese and more goslings than sites where they did not occur. Furthermore, the proportion of goslings raised in gang broods was correlated with the number of goslings and parents at the site. Our results support the hypothesis that gang broods form from the inadvertent mixing of goslings. This single factor, however, was not sufficient to account for all of the observed variation in gang brooding frequencies.
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) | 0.010 | 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".