Demographic consequences of translocation of overabundant Canada geese breeding in urban areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Translocation is a common tool for managing nuisance Canada geese ( Branta canadensis ) in urban areas across North America. However, no previous research has assessed how translocation affects survival and philopatry at donor and release sites. Such information is required for managers to decide if translocation is a suitable intervention to reach their management objectives. We used a joint multistate‐dead recovery mark‐recapture analysis to retrospectively measure the effects of translocation on survival and fidelity of immature and adult Canada geese ( n = 2,946 marked individuals). Between 2009 and 2013, geese from Wascana Centre, an urban park in Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, were subject to translocation to Cumberland Lake, a remote lake more than 400 km away. Survival varied between immature (mean annual survival = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.24–0.40) and adult (mean annual survival = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.69–0.75) geese, but translocation had no effect on survival probability. However, translocated immature geese had a lower mean probability of returning to Wascana (0.11, 95% CI = 0.07–0.18) compared to adult geese (0.83, 95% CI = 0.77–0.88). Translocation is unlikely to lead to a reduction in population density in our system given that translocation does not influence survival and adults return at high rates after being moved. If translocation is the only management option available, then the focus should be on immature geese. If translocation is used as a management option to minimize the number of geese that would need to be lethally removed, then managers should translocate immature geese and cull adult geese to reach management objectives. © 2017 The Wildlife Society.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".