Why Roost at the Same Place? Exploring Short-Term Fidelity in Staging Snow Geese
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When a communal roost is large relative to foraging distances, variance in foraging success may affect the positioning of the birds within the roost and we should expect fidelity to positions that improve foraging success. We explored fidelity of Snow Geese (Chen caerulescens) to three sections of a 5-km2 roost in flooded lowlands during their spring stopover in Quebec. From 1998 to 2000, we located 166 radio-tagged geese on 1077 occasions. Fidelity rates were higher than expected by chance in all sections in 1998, in two in 2000, but in none in 1999. Fidelity increased with the number of birds using a section, suggesting a positive effect of conspecific attraction. We tracked 292 foraging trips of 108 radio-tagged geese; birds from different sections tended to forage in specific directions. Average distance to foraging sites saved by appropriate choice of a section varied between 7 and 17%, depending on the section. However, distance traveled over 2 successive days did not decrease when geese switched from roosting in one section to another, suggesting that minimization of foraging-trip distance may stem simply from the spatial organization of foraging trips in order to reduce travel distance to food patches. Higher fidelity rates were associated with shorter travel distance in only one section of the roost, and dominant birds arriving early in the season tended to be more faithful to this section. We conclude that conspecific attraction, reduction in travel costs to foraging sites, and individual variation in dominance determine roost positioning and fidelity concurrently.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".