Harlequin Duck population injury and recovery dynamics following the 1989 <i>Exxon Valdez</i> oil spill
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill caused significant injury to wildlife populations in Prince William Sound, Alaska, USA. Harlequin Ducks (Histrionicus histrionicus) were particularly vulnerable to the spill and have been studied extensively since, leading to one of the most thorough considerations of the consequences of a major oil spill ever undertaken. We compiled demographic and survey data collected since the spill to evaluate the timing and extent of mortality using a population model. During the immediate aftermath of the spill, we estimated a 25% decrease in Harlequin Duck numbers in oiled areas. Survival rates remained depressed in oiled areas 6-9 years after the spill and did not equal those from unoiled areas until at least 11-14 years later. Despite a high degree of site fidelity to wintering sites, immigration was important for recovery dynamics, as the relatively large number of birds from habitats outside the spill zone provided a pool of individuals to facilitate numerical increases. On the basis of these model inputs and assumptions about fecundity rates for the species, we projected a timeline to recovery of 24 years under the most-likely combination of variables, with a range of 16 to 32 years for the best-case and worst-case scenarios, respectively. Our results corroborate assertions from other studies that the effects of spilled oil on wildlife can be expressed over much longer time frames than previously assumed and that the cumulative mortality associated with chronic exposure to residual oil may actually exceed acute mortality, which has been the primary concern following most oil spills.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".