MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111719843 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v121i3.481

Management Implications of Molt Migration by the Atlantic Flyway Resident Population of Canada Geese, <em>Branta canadensis</em>

2007· article· en· W2111719843 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Susan E. Sheaffer, Richard A. Malecki, Bryan L. Swift, John Dunn, Kim T. Scribner

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSyracuse UniversityMassachusetts MassWildlife Division of Fisheries and Wildlife
KeywordsFlywayBrantaBayNest (protein structural motif)PopulationGeographyBreedFisheryNuisanceFlockFledgeEcologyBiologyPredationDemographyHabitatGooseArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used satellite-tracked transmitters in 2001 and 2003 to document the timing, location, and extent of molt migrations by female Canada Geese (Branta canadensis) affiliated with the Atlantic Flyway Resident Population (AFRP) of Canada Geese that breed in the temperate region of eastern North America. Twenty-seven adult females were captured during the nesting period in late May and fitted with a satellite transmitter mounted either on a plastic neck collar or backpack harness. Nests of 24 birds were destroyed late in incubation to prevent renesting and ensure nest failure; three females did not have nests. Twelve of the 27 birds (44%) made a northward migration to molt in northern Quebec, Canada: seven to the eastern coast of Hudson Bay (58°12'N, 76°60'W), three to lowland areas east of James Bay (53°30'N, 79°02'W), and two to interior locations south of Ungava Bay (55°54'N, 68°24'W). Molt migrants were present in northern Quebec from June to September, a period that coincides with breeding ground aerial surveys and banding operations conducted for Atlantic Population (AP) Canada Geese that breed in this same region of northern Quebec. With >1 million AFRP geese estimated in the Atlantic Flyway, the potential exists for substantial numbers of yearling, sub-adult, and nest-failed or non-breeding adults to molt migrate to northern breeding areas and bias efforts to survey and mark AP geese. Within AFRP breeding areas, many local flocks have reached nuisance levels. We hypothesized that by inducing molt migration in breeding adults, through destruction of nests late in incubation, we would lessen recruitment, reduce numbers of summer resident adults with young, and increase adult mortality from hunting. However, molt migration behavior was not uniform throughout our study area. Molt migrants were from rural areas in New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont, whereas marked birds that did not make molt migrations were from more coastal regions of the flyway. The 14 birds that did not make a molt migration remained within 60 km of their banding site. A genetic comparison of these two groups revealed no detectable differences. We conclude that failure to undergo a molt migration is likely attributed to the historical origin of captive-reared birds of mixed subspecies that comprise AFRP flocks in the eastern regions of the flyway and the availability of quality local habitat, distinct from brood-rearing areas, for molting.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.529
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.209 · 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.

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
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207