Sex and age differences in distribution, abundance, and habitat preferences of wintering Harlequin Ducks: implications for conservation and estimating recruitment rates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We determined the sex- and age-specific distribution, abundance, and habitat preferences of wintering Harlequin Ducks (Histrionicus histrionicus) and evaluated potential biases in measuring ratios of immature males to adult males to estimate recruitment rates. A comparison of the occurrence of birds with habitat availability at the 1-km scale indicated a preference for wide intertidal habitat with cobblegravel or bedrockboulder substrate, small offshore islets and shoreline with attached or nearby reefs and islets, areas without streams, and areas with a greater historical abundance of herring spawn. Where the substrate was bedrockboulder, birds preferred areas with tidal rapids. Densities of birds were highest along linear and complex shorelines with reefs or islets where intertidal habitat was >100 m wide and substrate was cobblegravel or bedrockboulder. Patterns of habitat use among sex and age classes were the same at the 1-km scale but differed at smaller scales, with adult and immature males occurring farther offshore than females. Age ratios varied among areas and were biased by survey method and misidentification of distant birds. Correcting for detected biases gave an estimated male age ratio of 9.8%. Calculated estimates of female recruitment suggest a declining population, but it is necessary to incorporate emigration in estimates of adult survival before demographic trends can be confidently inferred.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".