Robust estimation of survival and contribution of captive‐bred Mallards <i>Anas platyrhynchos</i> to a wild population in a large‐scale release programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The survival of captive‐bred individuals from release into the wild to their first breeding season is crucial to assess the success of reintroduction or translocation programmes, and to assess their potential impact of wild populations. However, assessing the survival of captive‐bred individuals following their release is often complicated by immediate dispersal once in the wild. Here, we apply Lindberg's robust design model, a method that incorporates emigration from the study site, to obtain true estimates of survival of captive‐bred Mallards Anas platyrhynchos, a common duck species released on a large scale in Europe since the 1970s. Overall survival rate from release in July until the onset of the next breeding season in April was low (0.18 ± 0.07 se) and equivalent to half the first‐year survival of local wild Mallards. Higher overall detectability and temporary emigration during the hunting period revealed movements in response to hunting pressure. Such low survival of released Mallards during their first year may help prevent large‐scale genetic mixing with the wild population. Nevertheless, by combining our results with regional waterfowl counts, we estimated that a minimum of 34% of the Mallards in the region were of captive origin at the onset of the breeding season. Although most released birds quickly die, restocking for hunting may be of sufficient magnitude to affect the wild population through genetic homogenization or loss of local adaptation. Robust design protocols allow for the estimation of true survival estimates by controlling for permanent and temporary emigration and may require only a moderate increase in fieldwork effort.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".