Effects of radiotransmitters and breeding effort on harvest and survival rates of female mallards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There has been widespread speculation that breeding activity places adult female mallards ( Anas platyrhynchos ) at heightened risk of harvest due to insufficient time to complete the wing molt or recover body condition prior to onset of hunting and autumn migration. We tested the hypotheses that breeding females have higher rates of harvest and reduced prospects for survival by estimating band recovery rates ( f ) and annual survival ( S ) in relation to individual measures of breeding effort for 3,055 adult female mallards that had been banded and radiomarked during the breeding season in the Prairie‐Parkland Region of Canada, 1993–2000. Birds that had been marked with external prong‐and‐suture transmitters had lower estimated survival rates ( S = 0.518, SE = 0.118) than birds marked with implant transmitters ( S = 0.731, SE = 0.061), but rates for birds marked with implant transmitters did not differ from expectations based on other studies for females marked only with legbands. After excluding external transmitters, we found that recovery rates were unaffected by any measures of reproductive effort, but annual survival was lower for females that tended broods to 60 days of age ( S = 0.474 ± 0.115) versus females that never hatched a nest ( S = 0.654 ± 0.042). Telemetry data indicated that brood‐rearing females experienced extremely low mortality, so reduced survival of females that raised broods presumably resulted from insufficient time to molt and prepare for autumn migration. Management efforts that promote successful early nesting attempts may also improve adult female survival by allowing females more time to molt and prepare for autumn migration, whereas hunting regulations designed to protect late‐breeding females may prove ineffective if such individuals have higher natural mortality. © 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".