Trait-Based Selection of Seeds Ingested and Dispersed by North American Waterfowl
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are few studies on the extent to which waterfowl select plant food compared with what is available in wetland ecosystems. We used a new dataset on the presence of seeds in the alimentary canal or feces to identify flowering plant species whose seeds are ingested by North American ducks or geese. These data are a proxy for dispersal interactions because an important fraction of ingested seeds survives gut passage and is dispersed by endozoochory. We compared the plant traits of species whose seeds were ingested with those of species on the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Wetland Plants List (NWPL). Using a global dataset on plant form and function and chi-squared tests, we compared four categorical traits (moisture requirements, growth form, plant height, and seed mass) between species whose seeds are ingested by North American ducks and geese with the NWPL. Our analyses identified significant differences between the trait distributions of plants whose seeds were ingested by waterfowl guilds and those of the NWPL. Geese and ducks (except whistling ducks) ingested more aquatic and semiaquatic plant species than expected from the NWPL. All guilds except sea ducks ingested more herbaceous graminoids and fewer shrubs or trees than expected. Diving ducks interacted with fewer of the taller plants (>5 m) than expected, but otherwise plant height distributions did not differ from those expected. All waterfowl guilds ingested more species of intermediate seed size (1-10 mg) and fewer species of the smallest (<0.1 mg) or largest (>100 mg) size categories than expected. These results help to explain the role of the long-distance dispersal of seeds by migratory waterfowl in plant biogeography and how plant distributions are likely to respond to global change.
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".