Capture and Mortality Rates of Ducks in Selected Trap Types
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We evaluated different trap styles and related mortality of trapped ducks ( Anas spp.) for 3 field seasons as part of the United States‐Canada Cooperative Waterfowl Banding Program. During 2002, we evaluated 4 trap designs and caught 10,966 ducks. Trap style affected capture rates ( P = 0.018, F 5 = 9.02), with Benning II and oval traps catching more ducks than cloverleaf and star traps. In 2003, we tested 3 trap styles and caught 10,849 ducks. Trap style affected duck capture rates ( P < 0.01, F 5 = 15.16), with oval traps with 6‐m lead panels catching more ducks than Benning II traps and cloverleaf traps. During 2004, we tested 3 trap styles and caught 11,737 ducks. Trap style affected capture rates (P < 0.01, F 5 = 11.23), with oval traps with 6‐m leads catching more ducks than either the oval trap without leads or Benning II traps. Trap style affected mortality rates of ducks, but overall mortality of trapped ducks was low with a rate of 1.16% in 2002, 0.32% in 2003, and 0.17% in 2004; mortality was not a major problem in our study. Waterfowl managers may be able to catch more ducks using oval traps with leads without increasing mortality of captured ducks.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".