Factors Affecting Lipid Reserves and Foraging Activity of Buffleheads, Common Goldeneyes, and Long-tailed Ducks during Winter at Lake Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To identify factors potentially limiting the abundance of ducks at the northern latitude of Lake Ontario, we investigated whether the lipid levels and foraging behavior of sea ducks wintering there were best explained by endogenous or exogenous mechanisms. We used an information-theoretic approach to evaluate if date (14 December–15 March; endogenous mechanism), percentage ice cover of Lake Ontario (long-term exogenous mechanism), short-term ambient temperature (exogenous mechanism), or some combination of these factors best explained variation in lipid reserves and foraging effort of the Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), Common Goldeneye (B. clangula), and Long-tailed Duck (Clangula hyemalis). In the Long-tailed Duck, date explained lipid declines best, whereas in the Bufflehead and Common Goldeneye lipid reserves varied negatively with percentage ice cover. Conditions at our study site appeared to necessitate foraging because all species foraged, on average, ≥69% of daylight hours, and they increased foraging through the winter and when temperatures decreased. We calculated the number of days until lipid reserves should reach zero (i.e., fasting potential). Fasting potential differed in December, when Buffleheads (11 fasting days) had proportionately more lipid than did Common Goldeneyes (8 days) and Long-tailed Ducks (5 days). By March, the fasting potentials of the three species were similar (4 days), suggesting their survival strategies during similar winter conditions differed. Spatial and temporal modeling of temperature and ice cover with sea duck abundance at Lake Ontario and other Great Lakes may clarify factors that limit sea duck use of the region during winter.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".