Population dynamics of double‐<scp>c</scp>rested cormorants in two interior breeding areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Because of rapid population expansion, conflicts between double‐crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) and humans have increased, particularly at aquaculture facilities in the Lower Mississippi River Valley (LMRV), United States. Although key demographic information on the Interior population is sparse, management decisions for population reduction are already in place across their breeding range. New evidence suggests the Appalachian Mountains may act as a migration divide for Interior cormorants, causing some birds to migrate between LMRV and the western Great Lakes, whereas others migrate between Florida and the eastern Great Lakes. Most of the banded cormorants recovered near LMRV aquaculture facilities were banded as nestlings at colonies from the central Great Lakes west to the northern Great Plains. We selected 2 geographically distinct Interior cormorant breeding areas: west of the Great Lakes in Lake of the Woods (LOW) and eastern Lake Ontario (ELO), located on either side of the migration divide in the province of Ontario, Canada, to study population dynamics. We used age‐specific classes for our mark‐recapture analysis (Program MARK) on data collected from 9,498 color‐banded cormorants during the breeding seasons of 2000–2008. Adult survival was the same for both areas (LOW = 0.84 ± 0.09 SE, ELO = 0.83 ± 0.05 SE). Finite rates of population growth (λ) were also similar (LOW = 1.01, ELO = 0.97) and sensitivity analyses indicated that adult survival was the most influential vital rate contributing to λ for both breeding areas. However, young‐of‐the‐year survival estimates were distinctly less in ELO (0.19 ± 0.02 SE) than in LOW (0.45 ± 0.10 SE) and sensitivity analysis revealed that young‐of‐the‐year survival played a key role in ELO population growth. Moreover, ELO breeding area fidelity (F) was much greater (0.94 ± 0.05 SE) than the F estimates for all age classes in LOW (between 0.68 ± 0.19 SE and 0.80 ± 0.13 SE). Considering these regional demographic differences, we recommend that future management efforts be based on migratory flyways within the Interior population. © 2013 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".