Colony connectivity of Pacific Coast double‐crested cormorants based on post‐breeding dispersal from the region's largest colony
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To reduce conflicts with fish resources, other colonial waterbirds, and damage to habitats, double‐crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) are currently controlled (lethally and non‐lethally) throughout much of their range. Concerns are growing over the Pacific Coast's largest double‐crested cormorant colony at East Sand Island (ESI), Oregon near the mouth of the Columbia River, where cormorants forage on juvenile salmonids, many of which are listed under the United States Endangered Species Act. Management of this colony is currently under consideration and may call for a redistribution of a portion of this colony numbering more than 12,000 breeding pairs in 2009. We investigated regional and site‐specific connectivity of ESI cormorants using satellite‐telemetry to track post‐breeding dispersal. Cormorants dispersed widely west of the Cascade‐Sierra Nevada Mountains from British Columbia, Canada to northern Mexico. Tracking data demonstrated direct connectivity between the double‐crested cormorant colony at ESI and nesting sites throughout the dispersal area. Results of this study indicate that some cormorants from ESI could disperse to prospect for nesting sites throughout much of the western portion of the range of the Western Population; however, regional variation in connectivity with the ESI population, distance from ESI, and site‐specific nesting history will likely result in variable prospecting rates among regions and sub‐regions. Management efforts aimed at redistributing ESI cormorants across western North America (e.g., social attraction or dissuasion techniques) might be best allocated to areas or sites known to be used by tagged cormorants, particularly those sites with an established nesting history. © 2012 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".