Evaluation of the effects of september hunting seasons on Canada geese in Nebraska
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Populations of temperate‐nesting Canada geese ( Branta canadensis ) have increased in Nebraska, USA, resulting in an increased number of nuisance and damage complaints. September hunting seasons were initiated in southeastern Nebraska in 2004 to reduce populations of Canada geese. We analyzed band recoveries from Canada geese banded in southeastern Nebraska during their hatch‐year (HY) or after‐hatch‐year (AHY) to determine whether September hunting seasons affected survival, harvest, and recovery rates. Survival analyses revealed that HY geese had higher survival than AHY geese ( S AHY = 0.696, 95% CI = 0.679–0.713; S HY = 0.896, 95% CI = 0.786–0.953) and September seasons did not affect survival of geese in southeastern Nebraska. Geese banded in the geographic zone with the September seasons (southeastern Nebraska) had the same survival as did geese outside the hunt zone (northeastern Nebraska; S = 0.711, 95% CI = 0.666–0.752). September hunting seasons affected timing of band recovery; 23–49% of annual band recoveries occurred during the month of September. Prior to the initiation of the September seasons, the highest percent of recoveries occurred during November. The September seasons appeared to temporally redistribute harvest but did not reduce survival for populations of Canada geese in southeastern Nebraska. Continuation of the season may not be warranted, because management does not appear to be affecting AHY survival, which is needed to reduce the population. Additional or new methods are likely needed to control populations of temperate‐nesting Canada geese in Nebraska and managers should evaluate the effectiveness of these methods as they are implemented. © 2012 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".