Effects of implanted satellite transmitters on behavior and survival of female common eiders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Surgically implanted satellite transmitters have been widely used in studies of avian ecology, yet little is known about their potential impacts on birds. We implanted satellite transmitters with percutaneous antennae (approx. 50 g) in 17 female common eiders (Somateria mollissima) at a breeding colony in Arctic Canada. Among females implanted during incubation, 11 of 12 nests were abandoned within 1 week of being radioed. We observed no differences in the proportion of time that implanted female eiders allocated to basic behaviors. Radioed birds were more likely to pick or preen their abdominal (site of surgical incision) and posterior–dorsal (site of antenna exit) regions than unmarked females, although these behaviors were rare (approx. 0.3% of total time budget). Three of 10 females re‐observed had a pronounced limp following surgery, but we observed no walking difficulties among these females in subsequent seasons, and we observed some implanted eiders nesting in subsequent years. Mark–resighting models suggest eiders with transmitters had lower apparent survival the year after implantation (67.0%; 85% CI: 47.8–81.9%) than did color‐banded eiders (87.5%, 85% CI: 82.5–91.2%), but there was no model support for a survival difference in subsequent years. We conclude that transmitter implantation in common eiders leads to short‐term changes in behavior and a decline in first year survival. We encourage researchers to collect similar data on their study subjects where possible and use it to determine the degree to which data are representative of the greater population. © 2011 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".