Extinction, colonization, and distribution patterns of common eider populations nesting in a naturally fragmented landscape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spatial distribution, patchy environments, and population turnover have many fundamental implications for conservation ecology. Common eider ( Somateria mollissima L., 1758) population processes were investigated in Labrador, Canada, between 1998 and 2003. We predicted that local colonies would exhibit population turnover, that extinction would be negatively related to colony and patch size, that colonization would be negatively related to island isolation, and that intraspecific incidence–abundance relationships would be positive. We found that small colonies were prone to extinction, but patch size was not a significant predictor of extinction, nor was colonization related to isolation. The overall observed annual extinction and colonization rates were 0.11 ± 0.02 and 0.41 ± 0.06, respectively, and showed variation across archipelagos. At two spatial scales we found that mean colony size was a positive predictor of island occupancy (incidence), and these relationships were maintained across years. Our findings show that common eider colonies in Labrador are dynamic and have greater turnover rates than previously expected in a species that is considered highly philopatric. Our findings support the notion that highly mobile organisms such as migratory birds can exhibit characteristics associated with metapopulation processes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".