Geographical gradients in the population dynamics of North American prairie ducks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Geographic gradients in population dynamics may occur because of spatial variation in resources that affect the deterministic components of the dynamics (i.e. carrying capacity, the specific growth rate at small densities or the strength of density regulation) or because of spatial variation in the effects of environmental stochasticity. To evaluate these, we used a hierarchical Bayesian approach to estimate parameters characterizing deterministic components and stochastic influences on population dynamics of eight species of ducks (mallard, northern pintail, blue-winged teal, gadwall, northern shoveler, American wigeon, canvasback and redhead (Anas platyrhynchos, A. acuta, A. discors, A. strepera, A. clypeata, A. americana, Aythya valisineria and Ay. americana, respectively) breeding in the North American prairies, and then tested whether these parameters varied latitudinally. 2. We also examined the influence of temporal variation in the availability of wetlands, spring temperature and winter precipitation on population dynamics to determine whether geographical gradients in population dynamics were related to large-scale variation in environmental effects. Population variability, as measured by the variance of the population fluctuations around the carrying capacity K, decreased with latitude for all species except canvasback. This decrease in population variability was caused by a combination of latitudinal gradients in the strength of density dependence, carrying capacity and process variance, for which details varied by species. 3. The effects of environmental covariates on population dynamics also varied latitudinally, particularly for mallard, northern pintail and northern shoveler. However, the proportion of the process variance explained by environmental covariates, with the exception of mallard, tended to be small. 4. Thus, geographical gradients in population dynamics of prairie ducks resulted from latitudinal gradients in both deterministic and stochastic components, and were likely influenced by spatial differences in the distribution of wetland types and shapes, agricultural practices and dispersal processes. 5. These results suggest that future management of these species could be improved by implementing harvest models that account explicitly for spatial variation in density effects and environmental stochasticity on population abundance.
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".