DIET AND NUTRITION OF NORTHERN PINTAILS WINTERING ALONG THE SOUTHERN COAST OF TEXAS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most northern pintails (Anas acuta; hereafter pintails) in the Central Flyway winter within the Gulf Coast and adjacent rice prairies of Texas, USA. However, wintering habitat has declined in this region as a result of decreased rice production and changes in land use. Because pintails exhibit high winter site fidelity, more pintails are likely to rely on adjacent coastal habitats during winter as freshwater habitats along the Texas coast disappear. However, few studies have investigated the diet of pintails in estuarine environments. We estimated the composition and quality of the diet of pintails wintering along the lower Texas coast, and we compared our estimates to those for pintails in freshwater habitats. Proximate composition and true metabolizable energy (TME) were estimated for 4 foods in the diet of 253 pintails collected along the lower Texas coast during October–February 1997–1998 and 1998–1999. Shoalgrass (Halodule wrightii) rhizomes, wigeongrass (Ruppia maritima) seeds, dwarf surf clams (Mulinia lateralis), marine gastropods, and Gammarus amphipods comprised most of the pintail diet. Pintail diets in coastal habitats contained smaller proportions of protein and fat and a large proportion of ash compared to diets of pintails from freshwater habitats. As a result, the diet of pintails wintering along the lower Texas coast provided about half the TME of diets of pintails wintering in freshwater habitats. Because pintails rely on endogenous reserves acquired during winter and spring migration to support egg production, pintails wintering in Texas may experience greater reductions in recruitment and survival if displaced to coastal habitats.
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 | 0.000 | 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".