MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Effects of body size on goose behavior: lesser snow goose and Ross's goose

2005· dissertation· en· W2611538203 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jón Eínar Jónsson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgricultural Center, Louisiana State UniversityU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceDelta WaterfowlLouisiana Department of Wildlife and FisheriesLouisiana State UniversityMassachusetts Department of Fish and GameCalifornia Department of Fish and Game
KeywordsGooseAnatidaeWaterfowlBiologySnowInterspecific competitionEcologyBroodAnasIncubationBrantaZoologyAvian clutch sizeForagingHabitatReproductionGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Body size is highly variable among geese, both at intra- and interspecific levels. Interspecific variation in several behaviors has been attributed to differences in body size in geese: incubation constancy, tendency to maintain family units, and time spent foraging. Body size has important physiological implications for birds, mostly because mass-specific metabolic rate is greater for birds of smaller mass. The Body-size Hypothesis predicts that smaller species deplete their energy reserves at relatively faster rates than do larger species. Hypotheses and conclusions concerning effects of body size on waterfowl behavior often are based on comparisons of species that confront different climates, habitat types, and food resources, and migrate variable distances with different energetic costs. Accordingly, I controlled for such variation by comparing the behavior and physiology of lesser snow geese (hereafter snow geese) and Ross's geese, which are closely related and highly sympatric throughout the annual cycle. I found that incubation constancies of both species averaged 99%. The defeathered ventral area was positively related to clutch volume and inversely related to prolactin levels in female Ross's geese, but not in female snow geese; moreover, prolactin levels and body condition were inversely related in Ross's geese, but not in snow geese. I documented that 5 of 5 female snow geese and 1 of 5 female Ross's geese possessed fully-developed brood patches. In winter, I documented that Ross's geese spent more time feeding than did snow geese. All these findings, except that for incubation constancy, were consistent with predictions of the Body-size Hypothesis. Finally, I studied effects of intraspecific body size variation on goose behavior by studying movements and behavior of snow geese in southwest Louisiana. I found that both adult and juvenile snow geese from coastal marshes had larger bodies and bills than did those from rice-prairie habitats. Adult snow geese from coastal marshes spent more time feeding than did those in rice-prairies, whereas the opposite was true for juveniles. I conclude that snow geese in southwest Louisiana segregate into coastal marsh and rice-prairie habitats by body morphometrics, but move too frequently between the 2 habitats to be considered separate populations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAvian ecology and behavior→French-language works237,207→