Differential use of similar habitat by Harlequin Ducks: trade-offs and implications for identifying critical habitat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interactions between ecological processes operating at different scales are critical aspects of habitat suitability requiring careful consideration in conservation planning. Our previous research indicated that local abundance and demographics of subpopulations of Harlequin Ducks ( Histrionicus histrionicus (L., 1758)), structured in 11 river canyons in northern Labrador, were influenced by predation risk from nest-site-limited raptors. At demographic extremes, where raptors were absent, Harlequin Ducks were stable at high densities, with positive-projected growth, suggesting that they were at carrying capacity and a source of emigrants. In contrast, where raptors were abundant, low density, highly variable populations of ducks approached local extinction in some years, with subsequent increases suggestive of immigration rescue effects. A comparison of resources for Harlequin Ducks indicated no differences in habitat availability among these putative “source” and “sink” subpopulations. In the present study, we used multivariate analysis to identify habitat characteristics important for home-range use within these river canyons and to develop habitat suitability indices (HSI). Despite similar habitat availability, different characteristics were locally important. In a sink where predation risk was high, only danger-reducing habitat characteristics (i.e., overhang vegetation) were identified as important, whereas invertebrates was a predominant characteristic of the source HSI. Despite similar habitat availability, HSI developed in source and sink habitats would, respectively, over- and under-estimate regional habitat availability. Informed conservation and management strategies will therefore require integrating individual trade-offs about predation risk and resources into a multiscale context.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".