Mallard duckling survival and habitat selection in the Canadian prairie pothole region
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Like life-history theory, wildlife management decisions are typically predicated on trade-offs between benefits associated with investing resources to achieve higher reproductive or survival rates versus costs or risks of achieving those goals. On the Canadian prairies, most waterfowl conservation resources are directed to policies and programs that seek to increase duck nesting success. Limited attention has focused on post-hatching life-cycle stages, yet, despite considerable recent work on duckling survival rates, many uncertainties remain concerning how abiotic and biotic factors affect duckling survival rates. The role of upland habitat characteristics may be important but has received limited attention. I evaluated hypothesized sources of variation in duckling survival for 617 mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) broods on 27 Canadian prairie-parkland sites, with emphasis on assessing effects of managed and remnant natural upland habitats. I contrasted suites of a priori and post hoc exploratory models that incorporated effects of landscape, weather, female and brood-related variables to explain variation in duckling survival rates. Survival was lower for ducklings that used areas with high proportions of semi-permanent wetlands, as well as for broods that travelled farther overland. Exploratory analyses revealed further that survival of ducklings was negatively related to the amount of managed hayland. In contrast, duckling survival was positively associated with the amount managed grassland. There was no evidence of trade-offs between benefits of managing habitat to enhance duck nesting success versus costs in terms of lower subsequent duckling survival. I also addressed unresolved questions about how birds balance costs and benefits of selecting habitats by determining the survival consequences of habitat choices made during brood-rearing. In theory, fitness should be higher in preferred habitats, but this assumption is rarely tested. Fitness consequences (i.e., duckling survival) of habitat selection patterns were determined at landscape and local scales using logistic regression and information-theoretic model selection techniques. Best-approximating landscape-level models indicated that mallard females selected brood-rearing areas with a high proportion of wetland and perennial upland habitats, but duckling survival was not related to habitat selection patterns at this scale. At finer spatial scales, females selected brood-rearing areas with high proportions of wetland habitats, but, contrary to expectation, duckling survival was lower when females raised their broods in these areas. Females avoided areas with abundant perennial cover and wetlands with little vegetative cover and, consistent with prediction, duckling survival was higher when females selected areas with low perennial cover. Thus, females did not consistently select brood-rearing habitats that conferred the highest fitness benefits. Rather, the relationship between habitat selection and duckling survival depended on spatial scale and habitats considered.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».