Effect of Weekly Hunting Frequency on Duck Abundances in Mississippi Wildlife Management Areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Management of waterfowl habitat and hunting frequency is important to sustain hunting opportunities in Mississippi and elsewhere in North America. Managers have limited scientific information regarding the effect of weekly hunting frequency on waterfowl abundance for use in developing hunting plans for public hunting areas. We divided the hunted portions of three Mississippi Wildlife Management Areas into two treatments to evaluate the effect of hunting 2 versus 4 d/wk on duck abundance. Abundance of all ducks, mallard Anas platyrhynchos, northern shoveler Anas clypeata, and green-winged teal Anas crecca were not detectably different between weekly hunting frequencies. Sanctuary use increased approximately 30% during the first 1.25 h after sunrise regardless of hunting disturbance being present or absent. Our results indicate that duck abundance did not increase with increased rest days at Wildlife Management Areas, suggesting these areas may be hunted 4 d/wk without significantly decreasing duck abundance. Sanctuaries were used daily and may be vital to attract and retain ducks on Wildlife Management Areas.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".