MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005643187 · doi:10.1002/jwmg.21832

Variation in True Metabolizable Energy Among Aquatic Vegetation and Ducks

2020· article· en· W3005643187 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Margaret C. Gross, Sarah E. McClain, Joseph D. Lancaster, Christopher N. Jacques, J. Brian Davis, John Simpson, Aaron P. Yetter, Heath M. Hagy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceNature Conservancy
KeywordsCeratophyllum demersumWaterfowlAnasMyriophyllumBiologyGeneralist and specialist speciesAquatic plantEcologyOmnivoreAnatidaeAnimal scienceBotanyHabitatMacrophyte

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Avian diet quality is typically measured using true metabolizable energy (TMEN), which is a measure of assimilable energy of food items accounting for innate endogenous losses. Originally developed for use in the poultry industry, TMEN methods have been adapted to determine the value of natural foods consumed by waterfowl to parameterize bioenergetics models for conservation planning. Because there is little knowledge of the variation in TMEN estimates among food items and waterfowl species, we investigated TMEN of 6 common species of submersed aquatic vegetation for mallards (Anas platyrhynchos; i.e., a diet generalist) and gadwall (Mareca strepera; i.e., a diet specialist) in the midwestern United States during autumn 2015–2017. We precision fed and collected excreta from ducks using standard bioassays to estimate TMEN. Mallards had slightly greater TMEN than gadwall, but there was considerable variation in TMEN among vegetation species, duck species, and individuals within each species. True metabolizable energy (±SE; kcal/g[dry]) for mallards was greatest for Canadian waterweed (Elodea canadensis; 1.66 ± 0.26), followed by coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum; 1.51 ± 0.28), southern naiad (Najas guadalupensis; 1.37 ± 0.39), sago pondweed (Stuckenia pectinata; 0.50 ± 0.22), wild celery (Vallisneria americana; 0.05 ± 0.42), and Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum; –0.13 ± 0.42). Mean TMEN for gadwall was greatest for Eurasian watermilfoil (0.77 ± 0.32), followed by Canadian waterweed (0.70 ± 0.31), coontail (0.55 ± 0.28), southern naiad (–0.61 ± 0.34), wild celery (–0.98 ± 0.39), and sago pondweed (–1.07 ± 0.33). Generally, TMEN for most vegetation species was less than agricultural grains, but it was similar to ranges reported for seeds of naturally occurring hydrophytic vegetation and aquatic macroinvertebrates. We recommend that conservation planners incorporate species‐specific TMEN estimates in bioenergetics models and that future researchers improve TMEN assays for wild waterfowl following our recommendations. © 2020 The Wildlife Society.

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)0.000
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.144 · 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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicEconomic and Environmental ValuationFrench-language works237,207