MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103920274 · doi:10.1002/jwmg.220

Effects of implanted satellite transmitters on behavior and survival of female common eiders

2011· article· en· W2103920274 on OpenAlexaffabout
Peter L. F. Fast, Marie Fast, Anders Mosbech, Christian Sonne, H. Grant Gilchrist, Sébastien Descamps

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEiderBiologySatellitePopulationDorsumArcticPredationEcologyDemographyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations23
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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