MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Demographics of Breeding Female Mallards in Southern Ontario, Canada

2006· article· en· W2222471225 on OpenAlexaffabout
Steven T. Hoekman, T. Shane Gabor, Ron Maher, Henry R. Murkin, Mark S. Lindberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsDucks Unlimited Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNest (protein structural motif)AnasHabitatSeasonal breederAvian clutch sizeEcologyPredationBiologyGrasslandGeographyAbundance (ecology)Range (aeronautics)DemographyReproduction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reliable estimates of breeding-ground demographic rates are needed to develop effective conservation strategies for mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) breeding habitat in eastern North America. We radiomarked 224 female mallards in an agricultural landscape in southern Ontario, Canada, during 1997–2000. At each of 4 sites, 1 during each year, we estimated survival of adult females, breeding incidence, nesting effort, clutch size, nesting habitat use, nest survival, and hen success. We also examined the influence of nest age, date, and habitat on nest survival and the influence of date and female age on survival of adult females. Almost all females remaining on site were observed to initiate ≥1 nest (x̄ = 0.97, range = 0.95–0.98), we detected a mean of 2.07 (1.80–2.36) nests per female each season, and full clutch size averaged 9.56 (9.1–10.0). For most sites, females nested in grassland and hay land more than expected relative to habitat abundance, nested in wetlands and woody habitats in proportion to abundance, and avoided cropland and developed areas. Survival of adult females from 25 March to 15 July averaged 0.75 (0.65–0.84). Estimates from our best model showed relatively uniform survival across the breeding season, with the exception of large decreases for 2 sites during the peak of the onset of hay cutting. Nest survival averaged 0.13 (0.11–0.15). Our best model supported increasing survival with nest age but did not include variation relative to habitat or date, except in hay land. Nest survival in hay land was high relative to other habitats early in the nesting season, but declined sharply with the onset of hay cutting. Hen success averaged 0.37 (0.25–0.46). Because estimated nest survival varied little among sites and habitats and because suitable nesting habitat appeared abundant, we suggest that upland habitat conservation will accrue only limited demographic benefits. Incentives to alter hay-cutting practices may decrease mortality of nests and nesting females, but we believe such incentives are unlikely to be cost efficient and that experiments would be needed to reliably assess benefits.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.461
Threshold uncertainty score0.905

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.192
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations29
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207