MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770462961 · doi:10.1002/wsb.833

Attaching transmitters to waterbirds using one versus two subcutaneous anchors: Retention and survival trade‐offs

2017· article· en· W2770462961 on OpenAlexaff
Tyler L. Lewis, Daniel Esler, Brian D. Uher‐Koch, Rian D. Dickson, Eric M. Anderson, Joseph R. Evenson, Jerry W. Hupp, Paul L. Flint

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Society Bulletin · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Institute of TechnologyPricewaterhouseCoopers (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyAnimal scienceWildlifeZoologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT A major challenge of wildlife telemetry is choosing an attachment technique that maximizes transmitter retention while minimizing negative side effects. For waterbirds, attachment of transmitters with subcutaneous anchors has been an effective and well‐established technique, having been used on >40 species. This method was recently modified to include a second subcutaneous anchor, presumably increasing transmitter retention beyond that of single‐anchor attachments. This putative benefit may be offset, however, by increased health risks related to additional incisions and subcutaneous protrusions. To test this potential trade‐off, we attached radiotransmitters to molting and wintering surf ( Melanitta perspicillata ) and white‐winged scoters ( M. fusca ) during 2008 and 2009 in Washington State and southeast Alaska, USA, using single‐ (121 scoters) and double‐anchor (128 scoters) attachment techniques. We estimated daily probabilities of survival and radio retention for each group, this being apparent retention for wintering scoters because we could not differentiate shed transmitters from flighted emigration. For scoters during the flightless remigial molt, we found that addition of a second anchor increased cumulative retention probability (±SE) over a 49‐day period from 0.69 ± 0.11 for single‐anchor to 0.88 ± 0.07 for double‐anchor attachments, while having no effect on survival. However, during winter, scoters with double‐anchor attachments experienced no improvement in apparent retention, while having significantly lower survival during their first 14 days following transmitter attachment; of 15 mortalities during this period, 11 had 2 subcutaneous anchors. From day 15 onward, winter survival rates were nearly identical for single‐ versus double‐anchor attachments, indicating that adverse effects of subcutaneous anchors were mainly limited to the 14‐day postattachment period. Overall, given that the survival cost of adding a second subcutaneous anchor was substantial for wintering scoters—decreasing 14‐day survival by 12% for adults and 23% for juveniles—we recommend that researchers opt for single‐anchor attachments under most circumstances, especially during winter when birds may be energetically challenged. 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWildlife Society BulletinSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207