The effect of grass-endophyte associations on feeding of Canada geese (Branta canadensis)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada geese (Branta canadensis) and other herbivorous birds (e.g. paradise ducks, pukeko) can be a significant problem for both pastoral farmers and recreational turf managers in a number of locations in New Zealand. Canada geese were offered seeds and herbage of selected ryegrass combinations of (Lolium perenne) and endophyte (Neotyphodium lolii) to examine the effects of endophyte and the associated alkaloids on feeding behaviour. Forty geese were captured annually during the moult in January and contained in fenced areas by wing clipping. In both choice and no-choice feeding trials, geese consumed up to four times more endophyte-free than endophyteinfected ryegrass herbage. In a seed feeding trial, the geese did not discriminate on first exposure between the endophyte-free seed and that containing endophyte. However on Day 2 there was an 80% rejection of the seed containing endophyte compared to the endophyte-fr ee seed. A similar rejection of 80% was observed after a three month endophyte-free feeding period, suggesting the rejection was a long term learned response involving post-digestion feedback. Grass/endophyte associations may add to the armoury of bird control methodology as a tool to manage birds using habitat modification. Keywords: alkaloids, Canada geese, endophyte, herbage, post-digestion seed
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".