Trophic control of duck abundance in a prairie pothole food web
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The trophic control of ducks in a prairie food web was investigated with the use of a large scale manipulation of their mammalian nest predators. The three alternative hypothesized mechanisms of trophic control were (1) predominantly by predators, (2) predominantly by prey, or (3) some contribution of both. Mammalian predator reduction was predicted to (1) initiate a trophic cascade, (2) have no effect, and (3) initiate a trophic cascade in upper trophic levels but not affect lower levels, for each mechanism, respectively. Ducks, aquatic invertebrates, primary producers and nutrients were sampled on 20 wetlands on both predator-managed and control areas in North Dakota. Stable isotope analysis of invertebrates did not reveal multiple, discrete trophic levels within the aquatic food web, but rather high incidences of omnivory. Predator reduction affected abundances of specific duck species, but neither overall duck abundance nor other compartments of the aquatic food web, suggesting that ducks are limited more by food than predators.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".