Has habitat degradation affected foraging behaviour and reproductive success of lesser snow geese (<i>Chen caerulescens caerulescens</i>)?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Some individuals respond to habitat degradation by dispersing to less degraded areas while others remain but display altered behaviours, potentially compensating for the habitat change. We examined the latter possibility by evaluating foraging behaviour and size of lesser snow geese over a period during which their habitat became severely degraded. We show that in this now-degraded habitat, adults spend more of their total time in motor activities and less time in vigilance and comfort behaviours. Goslings spend less of their total time foraging and more in comfort and other behaviours. The pecking rate of both adults and goslings while foraging increases, as do motor and searching behaviours of adults. These changes have not enabled the birds to keep pace with the loss of vegetation, and the size of goslings has continued to decline, likely leading to a reduction in reproductive success. The persistent use of degraded salt marsh is probably related to philopatry and will further damage the marsh.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".