MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119872647 · doi:10.2193/2007-133

Diet of Mute Swans in Lower Great Lakes Coastal Marshes

2008· article· en· W2119872647 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Megan Bailey, Scott A. Petrie, Shannon S. Badzinski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsBirds CanadaWestern University
FundersOntario Federation of Anglers and HuntersBird Studies Canada
KeywordsWaterfowlCeratophyllum demersumBiologyAquatic plantPotamogetonMarshElodea canadensisEcologyScopariaWetlandHabitatBotanyMacrophyte

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: During the past 30 years, nonnative mute swan ( Cygnus olor ) populations have greatly increased, and continue to increase, in the eastern United States and within the lower Great Lakes (LGL) region. As a result, there is much concern regarding impacts of mute swan on native waterfowl, aquatic plants, and marsh habitats. There are presently only limited dietary data for mute swans in North America and none exist for birds in the LGL region. Thus, in 2001, 2002, and 2004 we collected 132 mute swans from LGL coastal marshes in Ontario, Canada, to determine dietary composition and to evaluate 1) seasonal and sex‐related variation in adult diets and 2) age‐related dietary differences. Adult diets did not differ among years, collection sites, or seasons, but female diets contained more pondweed spp. ( Potamogeton spp.) and less slender naiad ( Najas flexilis ) and common waterweed ( Elodea canadensis ) than did diets of males. Adult males, adult females, and cygnets had similar diets during summer and autumn. Overall, mute swan diets mainly consisted of above‐ground biomass of pondweed spp., muskgrass ( Chara vulgaris ), coontail ( Ceratophyllum demersum ), slender naiad, common waterweed, wild celery ( Vallisneria americana ), and wild rice ( Zizania palustris ); below‐ground parts of wild celery, sago pondweed ( Stuckenia pectinatus ), and arrowhead spp. ( Sagittaria spp.) were eaten infrequently. Comparison of our findings with those of other diet studies suggested considerable dietary overlap between mute swans and several other species of native waterfowl. Thus, we suggest that mute swans have potential to compete with native waterfowl and impact aquatic plants that are important waterfowl foods within LGL coastal marshes. Further, our results can be used to assess which aquatic plant species may be most impacted by foraging activities of mute swans at other important waterfowl stopover and wintering sites in North America. (JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 72(3):726–732; 2008)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score0.758

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207