MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124914083 · doi:10.2980/17-1-3279

Spatial heterogeneity of primary production as both cause and consequence of foraging patterns of an expanding Greater Snow Goose colony

2010· article· en· W2124914083 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Loïc Valéry, Marie‐Christine Cadieux, Gilles Gauthier

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCenter for Northern Studies
FundersOffice of Polar ProgramsNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaParks Canada
KeywordsGooseBroodForagingEcologyBiologyHerbivoreNest (protein structural motif)PopulationGrazingDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: In response to spatial heterogeneity of resources, many herbivores move between discrete areas to enhance access to the best foraging areas. Local forage removal by mobile herd-foraging herbivores in turn is likely to produce spatial variability in both plant nutritive quality and quantity. On the tundra of Bylot Island, Nunavut, owing to the recent demographic explosion of their population, most greater snow geese move out of their nesting area soon after hatch to rear their young at distant feeding sites. A previous study showed that goslings using these distant sites are generally heavier and larger than those that stay in the colony throughout the brood-rearing period. In this study, we examine the hypothesis that goslings' growth was reduced in the nesting area compared to distant brood-rearing areas because grazing pressure reduced standing crop. In light of the recent expansion in the distribution of geese during brood-rearing, we also investigated if the negative effect of chronic grazing on net above-ground primary production (NAPP) differed between the colony and distant brood-rearing sites. We monitored NAPP, grazing pressure, and intensity of use in the goose colony and in 2 distant brood-rearing areas over a 10-y period by sampling plant biomass inside and outside moveable goose exclosures erected annually and by counting goose feces along transects at the end of the summer. NAPP of graminoids in the nesting area was 40% lower than at the other brood-rearing areas, but the percentage of primary production consumed by geese (28%) did not differ among the 3 sites despite large annual variations. Cumulative feces density revealed that intensity of use of the 2 brood-rearing areas by geese was nearly 2 times higher than at the colony, but the timing of use differed as grazing on the brood-rearing areas occurred only after hatch, unlike the nesting area. We conclude that geese not only respond to spatial heterogeneity in resource availability but also create and sustain it through their foraging behaviour. Nomenclature: Porsild & Cody, 1980; American Ornithologists' Union, 1998.

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 score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations15
Published2010
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcoscienceSame topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207