Fitness heterogeneity in adult Snow and Ross’s geese: Survival is higher in females with brood patches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Life-history theory broadly predicts a fitness tradeoff between costs of raising offspring and parental survival. Waterfowl with precocial young face particularly high costs of egg production, incubation, and brood-rearing, but not all evidence supports a corresponding decline in survival. We used multi-state mark–recapture–recovery models to estimate annual probabilities of survival, reported mortality, and transition between 2 states for female Ross’s Geese (Anser rossii) and Lesser Snow Geese (A. caerulescens caerulescens) that attempted nesting near Karrak Lake, Nunavut, Canada. States were possession of a brood patch (high likelihood of successful nesting, “B”) vs. no brood patch (attempted nesting but failed, “N”). Based on over 43,000 birds marked from 2000 to 2015, we found that females of each species with a brood patch had consistently higher probabilities of survival than those without, subsequent to capture in early August. Virtually all of the state differences in survival were due to nonhunting mortality. These patterns are consistent with the concept of variable individual quality impacting vital rates across multiple seasons. Higher survival of females with brood patches may be linked to greater breeding success but also to a hypothesized dominance advantage afforded to family groups of geese during winter. Moreover, although hunting pressure can play a key role in regulating Arctic goose populations, it does not appear to affect this relationship between inferred breeding state and survival. Instead, coincident with recent declines in harvest rate in these populations, higher individual quality of breeding females appears to outweigh the higher hunting vulnerability of presumed parents with young. The potential influence of social dominance in reducing natural winter mortality among families may thus contribute to the survival advantage seen in successful, relative to failed, breeders.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".