MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110384414 · doi:10.2193/2007-587

Lesser Scaup Breeding Probability and Female Survival on the Yukon Flats, Alaska

2009· article· en· W2110384414 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kate H. Martin, Mark S. Lindberg, Joel A. Schmutz, Mark R. Bertram

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAythyaWaterfowlAnatidaeBiologyAnasBreeding pairBroodSeasonal breederEcologyBorealWildlife refugeTaigaAvian clutch sizePredationBreedFisheryReproductionWildlifeDemographyPopulationHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Information on the ecology of waterfowl breeding in the boreal forest is lacking, despite the boreal region's importance to continental waterfowl populations and to duck species that are currently declining, such as lesser scaup ( Aythya affinis ). We estimated breeding probability and breeding season survival of female lesser scaup on the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, USA, in 2005 and 2006. We captured and marked 93 lesser scaup with radiotransmitters during prelaying and nesting periods. Although all marked lesser scaup females were paired throughout prelaying and incubation periods, we estimated breeding probability over both years as 0.12 (SE = 0.05, n = 67) using telemetry. Proportion of lesser scaup females undergoing rapid follicle growth at capture in 2006 was 0.46 (SE = 0.11, n = 37), based on concentration of yolk precursors in blood plasma. By combining methods based on telemetry, yolk precursors, and postovulatory follicles, we estimated maximum breeding probability as 0.68 (SE = 0.08, n = 37) in 2006. Notably, breeding probability was positively related to female body mass. Survival of female lesser scaup during the nesting and brood‐rearing periods was 0.92 (SE = 0.05) in 2005 and 0.86 (SE = 0.08) in 2006. Our results suggest that breeding probability is lower than expected for lesser scaup. In addition, the implicit assumption of continental duck‐monitoring programs that all paired females attempt to breed should be reevaluated. Recruitment estimates based on annual breeding‐pair surveys may overestimate productivity of scaup pairs in the boreal forest.

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)0.001
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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations20
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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