Use of Restored Small Wetlands by Breeding Waterfowl in Prince Edward Island, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractSince 1990 under the Eastern Habitat Joint Venture over 100 small wetlands have been restored in Prince Edward Island, Canada. Wetlands were restored by means of dredging accumulated sediment from erosion to emulate pre‐disturbance conditions (i.e., open water and extended hydroperiod). In 1998 and 1999 we compared waterfowl pair and brood use on 22 restored and 24 reference wetlands. More pairs and broods of Ring‐necked Ducks, Gadwall, Green‐winged Teal, and American Black Ducks used restored versus reference wetlands. In restored wetlands waterfowl pair density and species richness were positively correlated with wetland/cattail area, percent cattail cover, and close proximity to freshwater rivers. In addition, a waterfowl reproductive index was positively correlated with percent cattail cover. Green‐winged Teal pair occurrence in restored wetlands was positively correlated with greater amounts of open water and water depths. American Black Duck pairs occurred on most (86%) restored wetlands. Restored small wetlands likely served as stopover points for American Black Duck broods during overland or stream movements, whereas they likely served as a final brood‐rearing destination for Green‐winged Teal broods. We suggest that wetland restoration is a good management tool for increasing populations of Green‐winged Teal and American Black Ducks in Prince Edward Island.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".