Spring Migration of Ruffs<i>Philomachus pugnax</i>in Fryslân: Estimates of Staging Duration Using Resighting Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seasonal bird migration involves long flights, but most time is actually spent at intermediate staging areas. The duration of stay at these sites can be evaluated with mark—recapture methods that employ day-to-day local encounters of individually marked birds. Estimates of staging duration are based on two probabilities: the immigration probability, the complement of a bird's seniority to an area, and the emigration probability, the complement of the staying probability. Estimating total staging duration from seniority and staying probabilities requires validation for resighting data and here we compare three data categories of Ruffs Philomachus pugnax passing through The Netherlands during northward migration: (1) newly colour-ringed, (2) previously colour-ringed and (3) radio-tagged Ruffs (recorded by automated receiving stations). Between 2004 and 2008, 4363 resighting histories and 95 telemetry recording histories were collected. As sample sizes for females were low, only data for males were analysed. Possible catching effects affecting estimates of staging duration were explored. Staying probability was estimated for all data. Seniority however, could not be estimated for newly marked Ruffs; the assumption of equal ‘capture’ probability for reverse-time models applied to estimate seniority is violated for seasonal resighting histories starting with a catching event. Therefore, estimates of total staging duration were based on resightings of previously colour-marked birds only. For radio-tagged birds a minimal staging duration (time between tagging and last recording) was calculated. Modelling indicated that newly colour-ringed birds had a higher staying probability than previously colour-ringed birds, but the difference translated to a prolonged staging duration in newly ringed birds of only 0.4–0.5 d, suggesting a very small catching effect. The minimal staging duration of radio-tagged birds validated estimates of staging duration for colour-ringed birds in 2007 but not in 2005. In 2005 a low resighting probability resulted in underestimates of staging duration. We conclude that (1) estimates of staying probability can be affected by catching although effects on staging duration might be small, and that (2) low resighting probabilities can lead to underestimates in staging duration. In our study previously ringed Ruffs resighted in 2006–08 yielded reliable estimates of staging duration as data had sufficiently high resighting probabilities. Average staging durations varied between 19 d in 2008 and 23 d in 2006.
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".