MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049352750 · doi:10.1002/jwmg.375

Comparative survival and recovery of Ross's and lesser snow geese from Canada's central arctic

2012· article· en· W2049352750 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joshua J. Traylor, Ray T. Alisauskas, Stuart M. Slattery, Kiel L. Drake

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsBirds CanadaDucks Unlimited CanadaEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJuvenileBiologySnowEcologyArcticNest (protein structural motif)PopulationInterspecific competitionGooseAnatidaeDensity dependenceGeographyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Large increases in several populations of North American arctic geese have resulted in ecosystem‐level effects from associated herbivory. Consequently, some breeding populations have shown density dependence in recruitment through declines in food availability. Differences in population trajectories of lesser snow geese ( Chen caerulescens caerulescens ; hereafter snow geese) and Ross's geese ( C. rossii ) breeding in mixed‐species colonies south of Queen Maud Gulf (QMG), in Canada's central arctic, suggest that density dependence may be limiting snow goose populations. Specifically, long‐term declines in age ratios (immature:adult) of harvested snow geese may have resulted from declines in juvenile survival. Thus, we focused on juvenile (first‐year) survival of snow and Ross's geese in relation to timing of reproduction (annual mean nest initiation date) and late summer weather. We banded Ross's and snow geese from 1991 to 2008 in the QMG Migratory Bird Sanctuary. We used age‐structured mark‐recapture models to estimate annual survival rates for adults and juveniles from recoveries of dead birds. Consistent with life history differences, juvenile snow geese survived at rates higher than juvenile Ross's geese. Juvenile survival of both species also was lower in late seasons, but was unrelated to arctic weather measured during a 17‐day period after banding. We found no evidence of density dependence (i.e., a decline in juvenile survival over time) in either species. We also found no interspecific differences in age‐specific hunting vulnerability, though juveniles were more vulnerable than adults in both species, as expected. Thus, interspecific differences in survival were unrelated to harvest. Lower survival of juvenile Ross's geese may result from natural migration mortality related to smaller body size (e.g., greater susceptibility to inclement weather or predation) compared to juvenile snow geese. Despite lower first‐year survival, recruitment by Ross's geese may still be greater than that by snow geese because of earlier sexual maturity, greater breeding propensity, and higher nest success by Ross's geese. © 2012 The Wildlife Society.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207