MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136485709 · doi:10.2193/2009-056

Effects of Large‐Scale Predator Reduction on Nest Success of Upland Nesting Ducks

2009· article· en· W2136485709 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Matthew R. Pieron, Frank C. Rohwer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDelta Waterfowl
KeywordsNest (protein structural motif)AnasVulpesPredationPredatorEcologyPopulationNesting seasonBiologyGeographyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Population growth for mallards ( Anas platyrhynchos ), and presumably other upland nesting ducks, in the Prairie Pothole Region of the United States and Canada is most sensitive to nest success, and nest success is most strongly influenced by predation. We evaluated the efficacy of reducing predator populations to improve nest success of upland nesting ducks on township‐sized (93.2 km 2 ) management units in eastern North Dakota, USA, during 2005–2007. We monitored 7,489 nests on 7 trapped and 5 nontrapped sites. Trappers annually removed an average of 245 predators per trapped site, and we found nest success to be 1.4–1.9 times greater on trapped sites than nontrapped sites, depending on year. Nest success was greater on both trapped and nontrapped sites when compared with a study conducted in the same areas in the mid‐1990s, likely because of changes in red fox ( Vulpes vulpes ) and coyote ( Canis latrans ) population dynamics. Nests initiated midseason had higher daily survival rates (DSR) than those initiated earlier or later in the season. Daily survival rates for nests in the middle of the nesting cycle were higher than for nests that were early in laying or late in incubation. Nests near the periphery of trapped sites had slightly higher DSRs than nests in the center of trapped sites. Predator reduction at the township scale provides managers with an effective tool to improve nest success at large spatial scales.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.230 · 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.

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

Citations67
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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