MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7027915692

Does organ and muscle plasticity vary by habitat or age in wintering Lesser Snow Geese Anser caerulescens caerulescens?

2017· article· en· W7027915692 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueWildfowl (Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDelta WaterfowlLouisiana State UniversityU.S. Geological SurveyLouisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
KeywordsHabitatSnowPlasticitySnow coverPopulationEctotherm
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plasticity in organ and muscle size and function allows individuals to respond to changes in food quality or foraging behaviour, in accordance with cost-benefit hypotheses. Lesser Snow Geese Anser caerulescens caerulescens (hereafter Snow Geese) winter in rice-prairie and coastal-marsh habitats in southwest Louisiana, where the time that the birds spend foraging and walking, their composite diets, and associated fibre and energy contents, differ between these two habitats. We therefore hypothesised that: 1) Snow Geese that feed primarily in coastal marshes during winter would have larger digestive organs than those in rice-prairies, to adapt to the higher fibre content of their marsh vegetation diet; and 2) that leg muscles of Snow Geese feeding in rice-prairies would undergo greater hypertrophy and thus be larger than those in coastal marshes, because individuals in rice-prairie habitat spend more time walking while foraging. The first hypothesis applied to adults and juveniles alike, whereas under the second hypothesis, we knew from concurrent studies that juveniles walk more than adults and therefore predicted that they would have relatively larger leg muscles, after adjusting for body size. Seventy juvenile and 40 adult Snow Geese were dissected to test these two hypotheses about plasticity and hypertrophy with respect to habitat and foraging behaviour. Caeca and gizzard lengths were found to be larger for Snow Geese feeding in coastal marshes, where the food ingested is relatively high in fibre compared with the birds’ diet in the rice-prairies. Conversely, leg muscles were larger for Snow Geese foraging in rice-prairies, where the juvenile geese spend relatively more time walking. Although not fully grown, juvenile Snow Geese also varied in the length of their digestive system and hypertrophy in muscles in relation to habitat, reinforcing the view that the birds’ morphology adapts to different feeding habitats and diets.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueWildfowl (Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust)Same topicPhysiological and biochemical adaptationsFrench-language works237,207