Nutrient-reserve dynamics of semiarid-breeding White-faced Whistling Ducks: a north-temperate contrast
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about the nutrient-reserve dynamics of waterfowl that breed in semiarid environments. Breeding White-faced Whistling Ducks, Dendrocygna viduata (L., 1766), were collected on the Nyl River floodplain, South Africa, during 1992–1993 and 1995. Mass of major lipid (wet skin + visceral fat + abdominal fat) and protein (breast muscle + leg muscle + gizzard) deposits and organs of males and females were evaluated in relation to sex and reproductive stage. Both sexes arrived at breeding areas with large lipid reserves and did not store additional lipid after arrival. Stored reserves enabled females to begin laying shortly after arrival, an important adaptation to ephemeral wetlands in semiarid environments. Females catabolized at least 37 g of lipid and 27 g of body protein during rapid follicular growth and ovulation. This accounted for 87% of their total lipid and 60% of their protein requirements during egg laying. Males catabolized at least 19 g of lipid between arrival and the end of laying. Although diets of breeding White-faced Whistling Ducks are high in fat, females satisfied most of their lipid requirements for clutch formation from endogenous reserves. Female White-faced Whistling Ducks can reproduce despite their reliance on a relatively low protein diet, and this suggests that they efficiently assimilate amino acids from plant matter. Biparental care apparently decreases the reliance of female White-faced Whistling Ducks on stored nutrients after ovulation, thereby allowing greater allocation of stored nutrients to egg production.
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 | 0.001 | 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".