MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1538416319 · doi:10.1002/jwmg.497

Relationships between grazing and waterfowl production in the Canadian prairies

2013· article· en· W1538416319 on OpenAlexaffabout
Pauline M. Bloom, David W. Howerter, Robert B. Emery, Llwellyn M. Armstrong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsDucks Unlimited Canada
FundersU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
KeywordsWaterfowlNest (protein structural motif)GrazingVegetation (pathology)GrasslandEcologyGeographyHabitatBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The survival of waterfowl nests is positively correlated with the amount of grassland on the landscape, and population growth rates of some waterfowl species (e.g., mallards [ Anas platyrhynchos ]) are sensitive to nest survival rates. Thus, the effect of actions that alter grassland vegetation physiognomy, such as grazing, on waterfowl production is of interest to waterfowl habitat managers. Additionally, grasslands contribute other ecological goods (e.g., forage for livestock and wildlife) and services (e.g., photosynthesis, carbon sequestration), which can be influenced by grazing practices. We address key uncertainties about the linkages between grazing, vegetation physiognomy, and the survival and density of duck nests at study‐site, field, and nest‐site spatial scales. Using data from 2,554 duck nests found in 434 grazed or idled fields (median field size = 48.0 ha) in the Canadian Prairie Pothole Region between 2002 and 2009, we found that vegetation physiognomy affected nest survival at both the field and nest‐site scales, such that nest survival increased with nest‐site vegetation density and late‐season field vegetation density. Nest survival also responded to early‐season within‐field variation in vegetation height in a quadratic manner, such that survival was greatest in fields with moderate variation in vegetation height. Nest survival was negatively related to the intensity of grazing and to the amount of cropland in the surrounding landscape. Both the abundance of wetlands and the average vegetation height in the field had a positive influence on nest density. Fields idled during the breeding season had greater densities of nests than fields grazed either early or late in the breeding season. Leaving lands idled may be the most effective way to increase both waterfowl nest survival and nest density. When management of upland vegetation is required, we recommend grazing at moderate stocking rates (between 2 and 2.5 animal unit months [AUM]/ha) after the waterfowl breeding season is complete and monitoring vegetative characteristics to ensure they remain suitable to attract nesting waterfowl (e.g., leaving vegetation height >28 cm). Where grazing must be carried out during the breeding season, low to moderate stocking rates should be encouraged as these rates appear to have the least negative impact on both waterfowl nest survival and nest density. These stocking rates also will maintain rangeland in good condition to the long‐term benefit of producers. © 2013 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.940

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations30
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207