MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127777512 · doi:10.1002/jwmg.707

Survival of Atlantic Flyway resident population Canada geese in New Jersey

2014· article· en· W2127777512 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julie A. Beston, Theodore C. Nichols, Paul M. Castelli, Christopher K. Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
KeywordsFlywayGeographyHunting seasonPopulationFisheryDemographyEcologyForestryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Atlantic Flyway Resident Population Canada geese (Branta canadensis) are long‐lived birds that were established during the mid‐1900s. At high densities, resident Canada geese reduce water quality, impair landscape aesthetic, damage crops, and cause safety concerns. Managers need information about survival to more effectively manage these populations via implementation of harvest and cull regulations. We analyzed records for 39,711 Canada geese captured 54,309 times during 1994–2011, of which 5,883 were recovered by the summer of 2012. We used the Burnham model to estimate survival, recapture rate, recovery, and fidelity and identify factors that affect them. Candidate models included combinations of sex, age class, year, hunting season length, bag limit, total harvest, number culled, the North Atlantic Oscillation Index, density, an indicator for urban banded birds, and percent agriculture, natural, rural, and urban land cover at the last known capture location. The best‐supported model included effects of age class, year, and whether the individual was banded in an urban or rural locale on survival and effects of year and locale on Seber recovery rate. We used it to construct a hierarchical model to estimate mean survival and Seber recovery rates for urban and rural birds and their variances. Mean survival of after‐hatch‐year urban Canada geese was 0.724 (95% CI: 0.675–0.772) and that of after‐hatch‐year rural geese was 0.718 (0.665–0.770). Based on estimates of survival and recovery, mean harvest rate was 3.8% (3.4–4.2%) for after‐hatch‐year urban geese and 7.8% (6.7–9.0%) for after‐hatch‐year rural geese. Hatch‐year geese in rural areas had lower survival and higher harvest rates than after‐hatch‐year geese, but the opposite was true in urban areas. Survival generally decreased over the course of the study and harvest increased. Hatch‐year males had the lowest fidelity of any group, and after‐hatch‐year geese of both sexes had fidelity greater than 85%. Knowledge of survival and its relationship with management and environmental factors will allow managers to better predict population responses to harvest and cull and to achieve population goals. © 2014 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.659
Threshold uncertainty score0.687

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.218
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations12
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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