MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165975783 · doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.1351

Manipulating individual state during migration provides evidence for carry-over effects modulated by environmental conditions

2011· article· en· W2165975783 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre Legagneux, Peter L. F. Fast, Gilles Gauthier, Joël Bêty

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à RimouskiUniversité LavalCenter for Northern Studies
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCaptivityReproductive successSeasonal breederArcticEcologyDemographyBiologyGeographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite observational evidence of carry-over effects (COEs, events occurring in one season that produce residual effects on individuals the following seasons), to our knowledge no experimental studies have been carried out to explore how COEs might affect reproductive output. We simulated an environmental perturbation affecting spring-staging migrants to investigate COEs in greater snow geese (Anser caerulescens atlanticus). During three consecutive years, 2037 females captured during spring staging (approx. 3000 km south of their Arctic breeding grounds) were maintained in captivity (with or without access to food) for 0-4 days. Duration of captivity (but not food treatment) negatively affected reproductive success, probably through stress response. Reproductive success was reduced by 45-71% in 2 years, but not in a third year with unusually favourable breeding conditions. This unprecedented manipulation indicates that COEs can have a strong effect on individual reproductive success in long-distance migrants, but that this effect can be partly compensated for by good environmental conditions on the breeding ground.

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 score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.595

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations88
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207