MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074720148 · doi:10.1002/jwmg.438

The effects of predator removal on mallard production and population change in northeastern North Dakota

2012· article· en· W2074720148 on OpenAlexafffund
Courtney L. Amundson, Matthew R. Pieron, Todd W. Arnold, Laura A. Beaudoin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceDelta WaterfowlCalifornia Waterfowl AssociationUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsFledgeAnasWaterfowlBroodPredationPopulationNest (protein structural motif)BiologyBreeding pairPredatorEcologyAnatidaeDemographyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In 1994, Delta Waterfowl Foundation began trapping mammalian meso‐predators in North Dakota during the breeding season in an attempt to increase waterfowl nest success and enhance recruitment into the fall flight and subsequent breeding population. Multiple studies on these sites demonstrated that removing predators results in near doubling of nest success, which previous simulation modeling suggests is the most influential vital rate influencing the population growth rate of mid‐continent mallards ( Anas platyrhynchos ). We present an assessment of the impact of predator removal on mallard production using population models. We conducted this study on 9 township‐sized (93.2 km 2 ) sites (4–8 sites annually per vital rate) in northeastern North Dakota from 2006–2008. Trappers removed mammalian meso‐predators on 5 sites and the other 4 served as unmanaged reference sites. To estimate recruitment, we used derived estimates and process variance of pair numbers, hen success (nest survival corrected for renesting), initial brood size, pre‐fledging survival, and post‐fledging survival, along with previously published estimates of breeding propensity and adult female survival rates. Trapped sites had greater hen success ( H = 0.69, ${\rm {\hat {\sigma }}}$ = 0.03) than reference sites ( H = 0.53, ${\rm {\hat {\sigma }}}$ = 0.06), but similar indicated breeding pairs, initial brood size, and pre‐fledging survival. We estimated that females on trapped sites added 140 more mallards of both sexes to the fall flight than females on reference sites, at an approximate cost of $74.29 per incremental mallard. Additionally, trapping predators provided a marginal increase (0.04) in finite population growth. We found that predator removal targeted at mammalian nest predators did not produce as many incremental mallards as previously thought and may not be a viable strategy for increasing mallard productivity under conditions similar to those observed during this study. We conducted a sensitivity analysis and determined that pre‐fledging survival was the most influential factor regulating mallard population growth. Although hen success increased as a result of trapping, duckling survival became a limiting factor. We suggest that waterfowl managers assess multiple vital rates to determine the likelihood that management actions focused on a single parameter, such as nest success, will yield desired population level effects. © 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 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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations36
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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