Ecology and Conservation of North American Sea Ducks<b>Ecology and Conservation of North American Sea Ducks</b>edited by Jean-Pierre L. Savard, Dirk V. Derksen, Dan Esler, and John M. Eadie.<i>Studies in Avian Biology</i>Number 46. 2015. Cooper Ornithological Society, and CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. xxii + 584 pp., 4 color plates, 98 text figures. $119.96 (hardcover). ISBN 13:978-1-4822-4897-5.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The editors of this volume have accomplished a remarkable assemblage of authors and topics on the sea duck tribe (Mergini) that has not been covered before in a single major treatise. While waterfowl (Anseriformes) are, arguably, the family of wild birds that have been most thoroughly studied by scientists, the sea ducks have been relatively poorly covered because of the remote habitats in which most of them are found at all times of the year. Only a few, such as the Common Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), Barrow’s Goldeneye (B. islandica), Bufflehead (B. albeola), and Hooded Merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus) are accessible fairly easily to researchers. The other 11 extant species nest primarily in boreal, Arctic, or sub-Arctic habitats, and typically winter in even more remote oceanic locations. Nevertheless, waterfowl are one of the best inventoried of all North American birds, and sea ducks have been the subject of several additional surveys designed to monitor specific populations (Chapter 1). Most sea duck populations are uncommon, and many have been declining in number to the point that North American populations of two of the eiders, Spectacled (Somateria fischeri) and Steller’s (Polysticta stelleri), are listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. In Canada, eastern populations of Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) and Barrow’s goldeneye (Bucephala islandica) are Species of Concern. The most significant upshot of this growing concern has been the formation of the Sea Duck Joint Venture of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan in 1998 (Sea Duck Joint Venture Management Board 2008, Sea Duck Joint Venture 2013). This has provided a superb forum for the sea duck specialists of the world to meet, plan, coordinate, and implement new science and to take other steps to stimulate progress in sea duck conservation. The 27 authors of this volume represent essentially all the individuals and government agencies and academic institutions that have driven the tremendous progress made since 1998. The fifteen chapters cover every major topic that one would expect. This is a departure from the more typical approach to taxonomic groups which usually cover each topic on a species-by-species basis. This was a thoughtful tactic as it encourages the broader community of scientists to integrate sea duck information into their analyses while, at the same time, provides important new perspectives for those more narrowly focused on waterfowl. Some new information is provided and the literature reviewed is thorough with all the common sources cited. In addition, a great deal of less common material is integrated by specialists in the general topics. These qualities contribute importantly to the editors’ central objective ‘‘to highlight
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".