Respiratory mechanics and morphology of Tibetan and Andean high-altitude geese with divergent life histories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-altitude bar-headed geese (Anser indicus) and Andean geese (Chloephaga melanoptera) have been shown to preferentially increase tidal volume over breathing frequency when increasing ventilation during exposure to hypoxia. Increasing tidal volume is a more effective breathing strategy but is also thought to be more mechanically and metabolically expensive. We asked whether there might be differences in the mechanics or morphology of the respiratory systems of high altitude transient bar-headed geese and high-altitude resident Andean geese that could minimize the cost of breathing more deeply. We compared these two species to a low-altitude migratory species, the barnacle goose (Branta leucopsis). We ventilated anesthetized birds to measure mechanical properties of the respiratory system and used CT scans to quantify respiratory morphology. We found that the respiratory system of Andean geese was disproportionately larger than the other two species, allowing use of a deeper breathing strategy for the same energetic cost. The relative size of the respiratory system, especially the caudal air sacs, of bar-headed geese was also larger than that of the barnacle goose. However, when normalized to respiratory system size the mechanical cost of breathing did not differ significantly among these three species indicating that deeper breathing is enabled by morphological but not mechanical differences between species. The metabolic cost of breathing was estimated to be <1% of basal metabolic rate at rest in normoxia. Due to differences in the magnitude of the ventilatory response, the cost of breathing was estimated to increase 7 to 10-fold in the bar-headed and barnacle geese in severe hypoxia, but less than 1-fold in the Andean goose exposed to the same low atmospheric PO2.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".