Climate, trophic interactions, density dependence and carry‐over effects on the population productivity of a migratory Arctic herbivorous bird
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several driving forces can affect recruitment rates in bird populations. However, our understanding of climate‐induced effects or bottom–up vs top–down biological processes on breeding productivity typically comes from small‐scale studies, and their relative importance is rarely investigated at the population level. Using a 31‐year time series, we examined the effects of selected environmental parameters on the annual productivity of a key Arctic herbivore, the greater snow goose Anser caerulescens atlanticus . We determined the extent to which breeding productivity, defined as the percentage of juveniles in the fall population, was affected by 1) climatic conditions, 2) fluctuations in predation pressure caused by small rodent oscillations, and 3) population size. Moreover, we took advantage of an unplanned large‐scale manipulation (i.e. management action) to examine the potential non‐lethal carry‐over effects caused by disturbance on spring staging sites. The most parsimonious model explained 66% of the annual variation in goose productivity. The spring North Atlantic Oscillation and Arctic snow depth were the primary climatic parameters inversely affecting the production of juveniles, likely through bottom–up processes. Indirect trophic interactions generated by fluctuations in lemming abundance explained 18% of the variation in goose productivity (positive relationship). Mean temperature during brood‐rearing and disturbance on staging sites (carry‐over effects) were the other important factors affecting population recruitment. We observed a strong population increase, and found no evidence of density‐dependent effects. Spatially restricted studies can identify factors linking environmental parameters to local bird reproduction but if these factors do not act synchronously over the species range, they may fail to identify the relative importance of mechanisms driving large‐scale population dynamics.
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) | 0.000 | 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".