Effects of Egg-Oiling on Double-crested Cormorant Movements in Eastern Lake Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowledge of double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus, hereafter cormorant) response to population control activities is important for implementation of a science-based management regime. To better understand adult cormorant response to egg-oiling, we initiated a two-year satellite telemetry study in May 2000 to evaluate cormorant movements (n = 26/year), reproductive success, and nest-site fidelity at Little Galloo Island (LGI) in eastern New York. Egg-oiling effectively reduced reproductive success on LGI to 1 treatment periods (2 May - 9 July). However, 97% of these bird's core use areas contained LGI through the 3 rd treatment period and 71% still contained LGI by the end of the final (4 th ) treatment period. Of all the cormorants that moved during or after control activities, only 2 (8%) remained in the vicinity of active breeding colonies for >3 months. Mean departure date for southerly migration was 10 September (SE = 8 days), though re-nesting efforts may have caused select individuals to delay migration until late October. Our data indicate control efforts do not result in complete abandonment of LGI for most cormorants during the nesting period. However, it may influence temporary relocation to other colony sites. More importantly, few cormorants relocated to other active colonies for long enough periods to successfully raise young. This study indicates that given long-term commitment, local and or regional egg-oiling efforts in the Great Lakes can be successful in reducing recruitment of cormorants within breeding seasons.
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 | 0.001 | 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".