Long‐term spatial heterogeneity in mallard distribution in the Prairie pothole region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of north‐central United States and south‐central Canada supports greater than half of all breeding mallards ( Anas platyrhynchos ) annually counted in North America and is the focus of widespread conservation and research efforts. Allocation of conservation resources for this socioeconomically important population would benefit from an understanding of the nature of spatiotemporal variation in distribution of breeding mallards throughout the 850,000 km 2 landscape. We used mallard counts from the Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey to test for spatial heterogeneity and identify high‐ and low‐abundance regions of breeding mallards over a 50‐year time series. We found strong annual spatial heterogeneity in all years: 90% of mallards counted annually were on an average of only 15% of surveyed segments. Using a local indicator of spatial autocorrelation, we found a relatively static distribution of low‐count clusters in northern Montana, USA, and southern Alberta, Canada, and a dynamic distribution of high‐count clusters throughout the study period. Distribution of high‐count clusters shifted southeast from northwestern portions of the PPR in Alberta and western Saskatchewan, Canada, to North and South Dakota, USA, during the latter half of the study period. This spatial redistribution of core mallard breeding populations was likely driven by interactions between environmental variation that created favorable hydrological conditions for wetlands in the eastern PPR and dynamic land‐use patterns related to upland cropping practices and government land‐retirement programs. Our results highlight an opportunity for prioritizing relatively small regions within the PPR for allocation of wetland and grassland conservation for mallard populations. However, the extensive spatial heterogeneity in core distributions over our study period suggests such spatial prioritization will have to overcome challenges presented by dynamic land‐use and climate patterns in the region, and thus merits additional monitoring and empirical research to anticipate future population distribution. Published 2017. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".