Effects of surgically implanted transmitters on reproduction and survival in mallards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Abdominally implanted radiotransmitters have been widely used in studies of waterbird ecology; however, the longer handling times and invasiveness of surgical implantation raise important concerns about animal welfare and potential effects on data quality. Although it is difficult to assess effects of handling and marking wild animals by comparing them with unmarked controls, insights can often be obtained by evaluating variation in handling or marking techniques. Here, we used data from 243 female mallards ( Anas platyrhynchos ) and mallard–grey duck hybrids ( A. platyrhynchos × A. superciliosa ) equipped with fully encapsulated abdominally implanted radiotransmitters from 2 study sites in New Zealand during 2014–2015 to assess potential marking effects. We evaluated survival, dispersal, and reproductive effort (e.g., breeding propensity, nest initiation date, clutch size) in response to 3 different attributes of handling duration and procedures: 1) processing time, including presurgery banding, measurements, and blood sampling of unanaesthetized birds; 2) surgery time from initiation to cessation of anesthetic; and 3) total holding time from first capture until release. We found no evidence that female survival, dispersal probability, or reproductive effort were negatively affected by holding, processing, or surgery time and concluded that we collected reliable data without compromising animal welfare. Our results support previous research that techniques using fully encapsulated abdominal‐implant radiotransmitters are suitable to enable researchers to obtain reliable estimates of reproductive performance and survival. © 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".