Dominance, brood size and foraging behaviour during brood-rearing in the lesser snow goose: an experimental study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the relationship between brood size and social dominance during the brood-rearing period in Lesser Snow Geese (Anser caerulescensc aerulescens) by experimentally manipulating food availability to create high-biomass food patches. A total of 128 social interactions were subsequently observed in experimental areas; the rate of interactions was significantly higher in experimental high-biomass plots (9.6 hr-1) than in control, low-biomass, areas (0.4 hr-1). During social interactions families (pairs with one or more goslings) were always dominant over pairs without goslings. However, there was no clear dominance hierarchy among families in relation to brood size. Neither aggressiveness (the number of interactions initiated) nor the proportion of successful interactions varied consistently with brood size. We conclude that, during brood rearing, dominance ranking is determined more by individual variation in aggressiveness of adult (parent) birds, rather than by any "motivational" effect of offspring or by brood size per se. Geese fed longer in the high biomass plots (mean 19.2 min per visit) than in control plots (2.9 min), and birds "defended" high biomass areas: 32% of all interactions involved a social unit inside the experimental plot driving off a social unit which was trying to enter the plot from outside. This suggests that geese derived benefits from monopolization of good quality food patches. The behavior of foraging geese varied in relation to food availability: birds took fewer steps per minute during both feeding and non-feeding bouts in the experimental plots and females, but not males, had shorter feeding bouts in experimental plots, i.e., they adopted the vigilant head-up posture more frequently. We suggest that the benefits of utilizing high biomass food patches during brood-rearing include higher intake rates, decreased energetic costs of foraging and reduced predation risk through increased vigilance behavior by parents and greater cohesion of the family unit.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".