MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149024492 · doi:10.1111/ibi.12109

The cumulative effects of management on the population dynamics of the <scp>D</scp>ouble‐crested <scp>C</scp>ormorant <i><scp>P</scp>halacrocorax auritus</i> in the <scp>G</scp>reat <scp>L</scp>akes

2013· article· en· W2149024492 on OpenAlexaff
Alban Guillaumet, Brian S. Dorr, Guiming Wang, Terry J. Doyle

Bibliographic record

VenueIbis · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCullingPopulationWildlifeBiologyPopulation growthCumulative effectsPopulation controlDensity dependenceEcologyGeographyZoologyAnimal scienceDemographyHerd

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wildlife species have been subject to control efforts throughout human history due to real or alleged human–wildlife conflicts. The Double‐crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus in the interior of North America is no exception, with recent population growth leading to increased conflicts and consequently the development of many control programmes. These control programmes are usually conducted at local scales, often with little or no effort to assess their cumulative effects at the population level. We attempted the first comprehensive assessment of the cumulative effects of control at various spatio‐temporal scales, focusing on 199 colonies of Double‐crested Cormorant monitored during a 29‐year period. Linear models were used to assess the relationship between colony‐specific growth rates and a set of candidate factors using an information‐theoretic approach. Colony‐level density‐dependent effects and local control efforts had the greatest influences on population growth. We detected a cumulative effect of management, whereby (i) the reduction in population growth rate was generally stronger when different control activities such as culling or egg oiling were combined, and (ii) past control operations tended to have a pervasive impact on growth rates, especially egg oiling and nest destruction, which negatively affected local recruitment. However, our results also suggest that catastrophic events and the culling of breeding adults that occurred at least 2 years previously could fuel subsequent recruitment or natural immigration from nearby colonies, for instance if the breeding success of remaining pairs was increased through a diminution of density‐dependent regulatory processes. Density‐dependence at the metapopulation level constituted a third source of regulation, as local growth rates were reduced with increasing number or proximity of active neighbouring colonies. We also found evidence that the culling of Double‐crested Cormorants wintering in the southeastern USA could negatively impact the population growth of individual breeding colonies in the Great Lakes, although further research integrating models of migratory connectivity is needed to reach more definitive conclusions. Finally, despite previous studies emphasizing its importance, the net effect of management‐induced dispersal appeared small at large spatial scales. We show that this can be explained in part by control strategies (e.g. spatially clustered operations). The continuation of Cormorant management efforts will provide an opportunity to refine the present assessment of the relative importance of density‐dependence, breeding vs. non‐breeding season management and dispersal, particularly if population models are coupled with monitoring programmes within an adaptive management framework.

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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations13
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIbisSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207