Do Arctic breeding geese track or overtake a green wave during spring migration?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geese breeding in the Arctic have to do so in a short time-window while having sufficient body reserves. Hence, arrival time and body condition upon arrival largely influence breeding success. The green wave hypothesis posits that geese track a successively delayed spring flush of plant development on the way to their breeding sites. The green wave has been interpreted as representing either the onset of spring or the peak in nutrient biomass. However, geese tend to adopt a partial capital breeding strategy and might overtake the green wave to accomplish a timely arrival on the breeding site. To test the green wave hypothesis, we link the satellite-derived onset of spring and peak in nutrient biomass with the stopover schedule of individual Barnacle Geese. We find that geese track neither the onset of spring nor the peak in nutrient biomass. Rather, they arrive at the southernmost stopover site around the peak in nutrient biomass, and gradually overtake the green wave to match their arrival at the breeding site with the local onset of spring, thereby ensuring gosling benefit from the peak in nutrient biomass. Our approach for estimating plant development stages is critical in testing the migration strategies of migratory herbivores.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".