MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887021031 · doi:10.1111/gcb.14418

Spring temperature, migration chronology, and nutrient allocation to eggs in three species of arctic‐nesting geese: Implications for resilience to climate warming

2018· article· en· W2887021031 on OpenAlexafffund
Jerry W. Hupp, David H. Ward, David X. Soto, Keith A. Hobson

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Change Biology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Geological SurveyEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaAlaska Department of Fish and GameConocoPhillips
KeywordsBrantaArcticEcologyBiologyAnatidaeNest (protein structural motif)Goose

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The macronutrients that Arctic herbivores invest in their offspring are derived from endogenous reserves of fat and protein (capital) that females build prior to the period of investment or from foods they consume concurrently with investment (income). The relative contribution from each source can be influenced by temporal and environmental constraints on a female's ability to forage on Arctic breeding areas. Warming temperatures and advancing Arctic phenology may alter those constraints. From 2011 to 2014, we examined relationships among spring temperature, timing of migration and reproduction, and the sources of nutrients females deposited in eggs for three sympatric species of geese that nested in northern Alaska. Compared to lesser snow geese (Anser caerulescens caerulescens) and greater white-fronted geese (Anser albifrons frontalis), black brant (Branta bernicla nigricans) were more likely to initiate follicle development during migration, resulting in fewer days between their arrival in the Arctic and the onset of incubation and requiring a relatively greater capital investment in eggs. Delaying follicle development until after their arrival in the Arctic provided snow geese and white-fronted geese an opportunity to forage near their nesting area and to deposit exogenous nutrients in eggs. With warmer spring temperatures, brant invested more capital in eggs, but snow geese invested less capital. Brant likely used capital to meet costs associated with earlier onset of follicle development when phenology was advanced, whereas snow geese used capital to compensate for poor foraging conditions during colder Arctic springs. Global warming is likely to reduce the quality of lower latitude marine habitats where brant acquire endogenous reserves and advancing Arctic phenology may increase their reliance on those reserves during reproduction. Near-term warming in northern Alaska may improve foraging conditions and favor the reproductive strategies of some herbivores such as snow geese and white-fronted geese that mainly invest Arctic nutrients in their offspring.

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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations38
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Change BiologySame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207