State uncertainty models and mark‐resight models for understanding non‐breeding site use by Piping Plovers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Conservation of beach‐nesting medium‐distance migrants has focused on breeding areas because protection of nests is more tractable than protection of non‐breeding habitat. As breeding ground management has encountered diminishing returns, interest in understanding threats in non‐breeding areas has increased. However, robust estimates of non‐breeding demographic rates and abundance are generally lacking, hindering the study of limiting factors. Estimating such rates is made more difficult by complex population dynamics at non‐breeding sites. In South Carolina, endangered Piping Plovers Charadrius melodus start arriving in July and some depart prior to December (the autumn‐only population) while others remain through at least March (the wintering population). State uncertainty capture‐mark‐recapture models provide a means for estimating vital rates for such co‐occurring populations. We estimated the proportion of the population entering the study area per survey (entry probability) and proportion remaining per survey (persistence rate) for both populations during autumn, and abundance of the wintering population, at four sites in South Carolina in 2006/7 and 2007/8, taking advantage of birds previously colour‐ringed on the breeding grounds. We made fairly precise estimates of entry and persistence rates with small sample sizes. Cumulative entry probability was ~50% by the end of July and reached 95% for both populations by October. Estimated stopover duration for birds in the autumn‐only population was 35 days in year 1 and 42 days in year 2. We estimated a wintering super‐population size of 71 ± 16 se birds in the first year and 75 ± 16 in the second. If ringing programmes on the breeding grounds continue, standardized resighting surveys in the non‐breeding period and mark‐recapture models can provide robust estimates of entry and persistence rates and abundance. Habitat protection intended to benefit non‐breeding Piping Plovers at our coastal sites should be in effect by late summer, as many birds are resident from July to the end of winter.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".