Changes in nutrient dynamics of midcontinent greater white‐fronted geese during spring migration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Waterfowl and other migratory birds commonly store nutrients at traditional staging areas during spring for later use during migration and reproduction. We investigated nutrient‐storage dynamics in the midcontinent population of greater white‐fronted geese (Anser albifrons; hereafter white‐fronted geese) at spring staging sites in the Rainwater Basin of Nebraska during February–April and in southern Saskatchewan during April–May, 1998 and 1999. In Nebraska, lipid content of white‐fronted geese did not increase, and protein content changed little over time for most age and sex categories. In Saskatchewan, lipids increased 11.4 g/day (SE = 1.7) and protein content increased 1.6 g/day (SE = 0.6) in the sample of adult geese collected over a 3‐week period. A study conducted during 1979–1980 in the Rainwater Basin reported that white‐fronted geese gained 8.8–17.7 g of lipids per day during spring, differing greatly from our results 2 decades later. In addition, lipid levels were less in the 1990s compared to spring 1980 for adult geese nearing departure from staging sites in Saskatchewan. This shift in where geese acquired nutrient stores from Nebraska to more northern staging sites coincided with a decrease in availability of waste corn in Nebraska, their primary food source while staging at that stopover site, and an increase in cultivation of high‐energy pulse crops in Saskatchewan. White‐fronted geese exhibited flexibility in nutrient dynamics during spring migration, likely in response to landscape‐level variation in food availability caused by changes in agricultural trends and practices. Maintaining a wide distribution of wetlands in the Great Plains may allow spring‐staging waterfowl to disperse across the region and facilitate access to high‐energy foods over a larger cropland base. © 2011 The Wildlife Society.
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".