MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201411803 · doi:10.3390/f12091247

Mycophagy of White-Tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus Zimmermann) in the Boreal Forest

2021· article· en· W3201411803 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Myriam Cadotte, Julien H. Richard, Jean A. Bérubé, Steeve D. Côté

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre Intégré de Santé et de Services Sociaux des LaurentidesUniversité Laval
FundersCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOdocoileusMushroomBiologyHerbivoreFecesGenetic diversityZoologyBotanyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mushrooms are a little known source of food for large herbivores, but are of high quality because of their high protein content and digestibility. Approximately 50 epigeous and hypogeous mushroom and lichen species have been identified in the diet of cervids so far using macro remains. Our main objective was to determine which mushroom species are consumed by white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus Zimmermann) using a molecular approach. We collected 114 fecal samples from deer harvested in 2014 and 2015 on Anticosti Island (Québec, Canada), extracted total DNA from feces, and amplified fungal DNA specifically via polymerase chain reaction. Amplified fungi DNA was then sequenced with the Illumina method to identify mushroom species consumed by deer. Our results revealed that deer harvested consumed up to 4979 fungal species, including 580 species that appeared to be consumed directly. Adults tended to consume a higher mushroom diversity than juveniles, and mushroom diversity consumed by deer was much higher in 2015 than 2014. Adult females consumed a higher mushroom diversity than males, especially lactating females. Our results contribute to the understanding of the role of mushrooms and their large diversity in white-tailed deer diet.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.883

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207