MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Renesting by Dusky Canada Geese on the Copper River Delta, Alaska

2006· article· en· W2058301218 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thomas F. Fondell, James B. Grand, David A. Miller, Richard Anthony

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceAlaska Department of Fish and Game
KeywordsNest (protein structural motif)DeltaBiologyPopulationAvian clutch sizeEcologyRange (aeronautics)Animal scienceGeographyZoologyFisheryDemographyReproduction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The population of dusky Canada geese (Branta canadensis occidentalis; hereafter duskies) breeding on the Copper River Delta (CRD), Alaska, USA, has been in long-term decline, largely as a result of reduced productivity. Estimates of renesting rates by duskies may be useful for adjusting estimates of the size of the breeding population derived from aerial surveys and for understanding population dynamics. We used a marked population of dusky females to obtain estimates of renesting propensity and renesting interval on the CRD, 1999–2000. Continuation nests, replacement nests initiated without a break in the laying sequence, resulted only after first nests were destroyed in the laying stage with ≤4 eggs laid. Renesting propensity declined with nest age from 72% in mid-laying to 30% in early incubation. Between first nests and renests, mean interval was 11.9 ± 0.6 days, mean distance was 74.5 m (range 0–214 m), and clutch size declined 0.9 ± 0.4 eggs. We incorporated our renesting estimates and available estimates of other nesting parameters into an individual-based model to predict the proportion of first nests, continuation nests, and renests, and to examine female success on the CRD, 1997–2000. Our model predicted that 19–36% of nests each year were continuation nests and renests. Also, through 15 May (the approx. date of breeding ground surveys), 1.1–1.3 nests were initiated per female. Thus, the number of nests per female would have a significant, though relatively consistent, effect on adjusting the relation between numbers of nests found on ground surveys versus numbers of birds seen during aerial surveys. We also suggest a method that managers could use to predict nests per female using nest success of early nests. Our model predicted that relative to observed estimates of nest success, female success was 32–100% greater, due to replacement nests. Thus, although nest success remains low, production for duskies was higher than previously thought. For dusky Canada geese, managers need to consider both continuation nests and renests in designing surveys and in calculating adjustment factors for the expansion of aerial survey data using nest densities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.417
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations19
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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