MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804320225 · doi:10.1002/jwmg.21486

Behavioral response of canada geese to egg‐oiling and nest removal

2018· article· en· W2804320225 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Matthieu Beaumont, Jean‐Paul Rodrigue, Catherine Pilotte, Émilie Chalifour, Jean‐François Giroux

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
FundersEnvironment CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
KeywordsNest (protein structural motif)AnatidaePredationBiologyBrantaHatchingEcologyPopulationFledgeAvian clutch sizeZoologyFisheryGooseReproductionDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Controlling overabundant goose populations remains a wildlife management challenge. Although reducing adult survival is considered more effective than reducing fecundity, egg‐oiling, and egg removal are often preferential techniques for controlling temperate nesting Canada geese ( Branta canadensis ) in urban and peri‐urban settings. Little is known about the effect of these methods on the subsequent behavior of geese and their potential effects on population dynamics. We aimed to determine how long Canada geese nesting in southern Quebec, Canada remain at the nest site following egg‐oiling, whether birds submitted to egg‐oiling or nest removal persist in the area to molt and whether they return to breed in the study area the following year, and if so, how far do they nest from their previous nest location. We studied 996 nests initiated by 442 neck‐collared females between 2006 and 2012 including 76 that were oiled, 91 that were removed, 143 that suffered complete loss of the clutch by predators, were flooded, or abandoned, and 686 that were successful. We found that egg‐oiling delayed nest abandonment past the expected hatching date and that the delay increased when applying the treatment later in incubation. We observed only 10 cases of renesting and most occurred after nest flooding. Females that had their nests removed or whose nest failed had a greater probability of leaving the study area to molt elsewhere than females that were successful or those that had their eggs treated with oil. The probability that a female survived and returned to nest in the area was not related to the fate of its nest in the previous year and was estimated at 0.71 (95% CI = 0.67–0.74). The mean distance between successive nesting attempts was not related to the previous year nest fate and averaged 78 ± 8 m. Nest success and thus recruitment was reduced during years with the experimental treatments, but strong philopatry indicates that treatments must be repeated every year to have an effect on the local population growth. If the goal is to keep the geese longer at their nest site, then coating eggs with oil as late as possible in incubation will result in geese remaining at the nest site well past the expected hatch date. If the goal is to cause the geese to leave the nest site, then nest removal should be favored. © 2018 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207