Lincoln estimates of mallard (<i><scp>A</scp>nas platyrhynchos</i>) abundance in <scp>N</scp>orth <scp>A</scp>merica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimates of range-wide abundance, harvest, and harvest rate are fundamental for sound inferences about the role of exploitation in the dynamics of free-ranging wildlife populations, but reliability of existing survey methods for abundance estimation is rarely assessed using alternative approaches. North American mallard populations have been surveyed each spring since 1955 using internationally coordinated aerial surveys, but population size can also be estimated with Lincoln's method using banding and harvest data. We estimated late summer population size of adult and juvenile male and female mallards in western, midcontinent, and eastern North America using Lincoln's method of dividing (i) total estimated harvest, [Formula: see text], by estimated harvest rate, [Formula: see text], calculated as (ii) direct band recovery rate, [Formula: see text], divided by the (iii) band reporting rate, [Formula: see text]. Our goal was to compare estimates based on Lincoln's method with traditional estimates based on aerial surveys. Lincoln estimates of adult males and females alive in the period June-September were 4.0 (range: 2.5-5.9), 1.8 (range: 0.6-3.0), and 1.8 (range: 1.3-2.7) times larger than respective aerial survey estimates for the western, midcontinent, and eastern mallard populations, and the two population estimates were only modestly correlated with each other (western: r = 0.70, 1993-2011; midcontinent: r = 0.54, 1961-2011; eastern: r = 0.50, 1993-2011). Higher Lincoln estimates are predictable given that the geographic scope of inference from Lincoln estimates is the entire population range, whereas sampling frames for aerial surveys are incomplete. Although each estimation method has a number of important potential biases, our review suggests that underestimation of total population size by aerial surveys is the most likely explanation. In addition to providing measures of total abundance, Lincoln's method provides estimates of fecundity and population sex ratio and could be used in integrated population models to provide greater insights about population dynamics and management of North American mallards and most other harvested species.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".