MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1484190838 · doi:10.1002/wsb.431

Integrated damage management reduces grazing of wild rice by resident Canada geese in New Jersey

2014· article· en· W1484190838 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Theodore C. Nichols

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Society Bulletin · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrazingFlywayCullingWaterfowlWildlifeWetlandGooseMarshBiologyPopulationBrantaHerbivoreGrazing pressureEcologyGeographyFisheryHabitatDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Tidal freshwater marshes of the Maurice River, New Jersey, USA, have been long renowned for robust stands of wild rice ( Zizania aquatica ). During the 1990s, these marshes experienced an apparent decline in wild rice. During 2000–2002, I used paired fenced exclosures and open control plots to measure herbivory by the Atlantic Flyway Resident Population of Canada geese ( Branta canadensis ) on wild rice and response of rice to an integrated damage management program (IDMP). The IDMP consisted of rendering goose nests unhatchable, shooting, and culling molting geese. The IDMP reduced the number of goslings by 60% during the first year and essentially eliminated recruitment during the second year. Prior to the IDMP, grazing by geese reduced the density of rice by 78% and the height of plants surviving grazing by 17%. With implementation of an IDMP, rice density between exclosures and control plots did not differ. Wetland managers should consider the grazing impacts that resident population Canada geese can incur on native plant communities and develop a plan for mitigating that damage. © 2014 The Wildlife Society.

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)0.001
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 score0.641
Threshold uncertainty score0.723

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWildlife Society BulletinSame topicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamicsFrench-language works237,207