INFLUENCE OF DIET ON FATTY-ACID COMPOSITION OF DEPOT FAT IN WESTERN SANDPIPERS (CALIDRIS MAURI)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Western Sandpipers (Calidris mauri) have been previously shown to undergo seasonal changes in the fatty acid composition of their fat stores, even though they do not show the marked seasonal variation in diet common to many migratory passerines. We investigated the effect of dietary fatty acid composition on the fatty acid composition of adipose tissue in captive Western Sandpipers by feeding birds experimental diets with different fatty acid composition. In addition, we determined the effect of total percentage of fat content of the diet (5 vs. 10%) on fatty acid composition of depot fat. Birds maintained normal body mass (24–27 g) throughout all experimental treatments. Most adipose fatty acids were sensitive to dietary manipulation to some extent. Changes in fatty acid composition of the diet had the largest effect on adipose tissue composition for the essential polyunsaturated fatty acid linoleate (18:2), whereas it had the least effect for the monounsaturated fatty acid oleate (18:1). The saturated fatty acid palmitate (16:0) demonstrated an intermediate capacity to alter fatty acid composition of adipose tissue. Total amount of fat in the diet did not influence the effect of diet on fatty acid deposition. Results of dietary manipulations in this study suggest that diet does explain some of the variation in fatty acid composition observed during migration in Western Sandpipers, but that certain fatty acids can be modulated independently of diet (probably through de novo synthesis, postabsorption modification, or both).
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".