Absence of difference in survival between two distant breeding sites of greater snow geese
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Adaptive management of harvested waterfowl requires accurate estimations of demographic parameters. These must also be representative of the targeted population. In the greater snow goose, all demographic parameters so far have been estimated from long‐term banding conducted at a single nesting colony in the Arctic, Bylot Island, where 15% of the population breeds. We used data from a second banding program conducted on Ellesmere Island, 800 km north of Bylot Island and near the northern limit of the breeding range, to compare adult survival between these 2 breeding sites over the period 2007–2011. This allowed us to determine the representativeness of demographic parameters estimated from the Bylot colony. We used a multi‐event capture‐recapture model combining recaptures, resightings of neckbanded birds, and recoveries on a seasonal basis, which allowed us to test specifically for differences in survival during the migration periods. Despite differences in migration distance (20% longer for Ellesmere Island) and environmental conditions, survival rate of birds from these 2 breeding sites were similar in all seasons. Annual survival ranged from 0.72 to 0.79. This apparent absence of a cost of migration on survival may be explained by the canalization hypothesis: variance in adult survival of the greater snow goose, a long‐lived species, caused by environmental factors may have been reduced because of selection pressure on this trait, which is closely linked to fitness. The absence of spatial variation in adult survival suggests that the extrapolation of survival parameters estimated from the Bylot Island colony to the entire population may be valid. © 2015 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 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) | 0.002 | 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".