Ecology and Conservation of North American Sea Ducks<b>Ecology and Conservation of North American Sea Ducks</b>edited by Jean-Pierre L. Savard, Dirk V. Derksen, Dan Esler, and John M. Eadie.<i>Studies in Avian Biology</i>Number 46. 2015. Cooper Ornithological Society, and CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. xxii + 584 pp., 4 color plates, 98 text figures. $119.96 (hardcover). ISBN 13:978-1-4822-4897-5.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The editors of this volume have accomplished a remarkable assemblage of authors and topics on the sea duck tribe (Mergini) that has not been covered before in a single major treatise. While waterfowl (Anseriformes) are, arguably, the family of wild birds that have been most thoroughly studied by scientists, the sea ducks have been relatively poorly covered because of the remote habitats in which most of them are found at all times of the year. Only a few, such as the Common Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), Barrow’s Goldeneye (B. islandica), Bufflehead (B. albeola), and Hooded Merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus) are accessible fairly easily to researchers. The other 11 extant species nest primarily in boreal, Arctic, or sub-Arctic habitats, and typically winter in even more remote oceanic locations. Nevertheless, waterfowl are one of the best inventoried of all North American birds, and sea ducks have been the subject of several additional surveys designed to monitor specific populations (Chapter 1). Most sea duck populations are uncommon, and many have been declining in number to the point that North American populations of two of the eiders, Spectacled (Somateria fischeri) and Steller’s (Polysticta stelleri), are listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. In Canada, eastern populations of Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) and Barrow’s goldeneye (Bucephala islandica) are Species of Concern. The most significant upshot of this growing concern has been the formation of the Sea Duck Joint Venture of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan in 1998 (Sea Duck Joint Venture Management Board 2008, Sea Duck Joint Venture 2013). This has provided a superb forum for the sea duck specialists of the world to meet, plan, coordinate, and implement new science and to take other steps to stimulate progress in sea duck conservation. The 27 authors of this volume represent essentially all the individuals and government agencies and academic institutions that have driven the tremendous progress made since 1998. The fifteen chapters cover every major topic that one would expect. This is a departure from the more typical approach to taxonomic groups which usually cover each topic on a species-by-species basis. This was a thoughtful tactic as it encourages the broader community of scientists to integrate sea duck information into their analyses while, at the same time, provides important new perspectives for those more narrowly focused on waterfowl. Some new information is provided and the literature reviewed is thorough with all the common sources cited. In addition, a great deal of less common material is integrated by specialists in the general topics. These qualities contribute importantly to the editors’ central objective ‘‘to highlight
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,011 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».