Experimental evaluation of duck nesting structures in Prairie Parkland Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Overwater nesting structures for ducks have been used primarily to increase mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) production where success of ground-nesting hens was low (< 15%), such as in the Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) in North America. However, managers have inquired about recommended numbers of nest structures for small wetlands (i.e., < 2 ha) based on duck-production and benefit-cost evaluations, but such data were not available. Therefore, we conducted an experiment in the PPR in Manitoba, Canada, in 2001 and 2002 to test the effects of different treatment numbers of nest structures/wetland (1, 2, or 4) and wetland area (≤0.4 or 0.45-1.5 ha) on use of structures by nesting ducks, nest success, and number of ducklings produced, as well as to evaluate cost-benefits of the structures. Across duck species, mean use of structures by nesting hens increased 56% between years (F1 107 = 14.29, P < 0.001); however, by year 2 use did not differ among treatment numbers of structures and averaged 78% (t157=−0.15-1.08, P ≥ 0.28). Apparent nest success averaged 99% across treatment numbers of structures in 2001, but it did not differ among treatments (F2,72 = 0.93, P=0.40) and decreased to an overall 48% in 2002, largely due to egg predation by corvids. Mean number of ducklings departing structures did not vary between years (F1,54 = 2.38, P=0.13), but treatment number of structures influenced mean number of ducklings (pooled over 2001 and 2002) exiting structures (F2,54=4.54, P=0.02). Mean numbers of ducklings departing 1 and 2 structures/wetland did not differ (t54 = 0.29, P = 0.77; pooled =4.61 ducklings), but each respective mean was nearly twice that from 4 structures/wetland (t54=2.26-2.51, P ≤ 0.03). Neither wetland area nor any interactions influenced any analysis (F1–2,54-157=0–1.11, P ≥ 0.33). We concluded that 2 structures/wetland was cost-effective ($2.16/fledged duck [U.S.]) for consideration among other management strategies to increase nest success of mallards in the PPR; however, managers should monitor duckling production from structures to determine whether our initial recommendation from a single study area warrants change.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".