Body and organ mass dynamics during remigial moult in a wing–foot-propelled diving sea duck: the Common Eider (Atlantic) (<i>Somateria mollissima dresseri</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Body and organ dynamics, during remigial moult, have been mainly explored on geese, dabbling ducks, and foot-propelled diving ducks, but weakly on sea ducks. This study investigated the internal changes in a wing–foot-propelled sea duck to determine the adaptive strategies implemented. Forty-five male Common Eiders (Atlantic) (Somateria mollissima dresseri Sharpe, 1871), collected in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, were dissected; their body mass, muscle mass, and organ sizes were measured. We tested three hypotheses: (1) S. m. dresseri use a strategic reduction of body mass to reduce the flightlessness duration; (2) organs will exhibit changes consistent with a trade-off between function and maintenance to save and reallocate energy and proteins to feather growth; (3) S. m. dresseri would show lower flight muscle reduction than foot-propelled diving ducks. Somateria mollissima dresseri did not lose body mass, which does not support the first hypothesis. Atrophy of the heart followed by hypertrophy and opposite changes in leg muscle mass and gizzard mass are consistent with the second hypothesis. Flight muscle mass showed lower variations than in other ducks, validating the third hypothesis. We also suggest that the lipid depletion observed early in the moult could be a strategy to reduce foraging effort and minimize the risk of damaging the growing feathers.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".