Effects of Sex and Age on Survival of Northern Flickers: a Six-Year Field Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although many forestry management strategies rely on population estimates of indicator species such as woodpeckers (Picidae), empirical estimates of demographic parameters within this taxon are few. We used program MARK to assess influences of age and sex on apparent survival of adult Northern Flickers (Colaptes auratus) from a six-year mark-recapture study. The top model suggested no differences in apparent survival between the sexes with an overall survival estimate of 0.43 (95% CI: 0.38–0.48). Other models suggested that recapture efficiency differed between the sexes (males: 0.87; females: 0.78), perhaps because males were more philopatric to nest sites. We suggest that high parental investment by male flickers relative to other taxa such as passerines may lead to relatively equal mortality rates between the sexes, rather than the common pattern of female-biased mortality. Survival rates relative to age were constant at least up to the age of three years. Overall, flickers appear to have lower survival than some other woodpecker species and may invest relatively heavily in current reproduction.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".