MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982543853 · doi:10.1002/ece3.5743

Experimental harvest regulations reveal that water availability during spring, not harvest, affects change in a waterfowl population

2019· article· en· W2982543853 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Benjamin S. Sedinger, Thomas V. Riecke, Christopher A. Nicolai, Russell Woolstenhulme, William G. Henry, Kelley M. Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology and Evolution · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceDelta WaterfowlCalifornia Waterfowl AssociationUniversity of Nevada, RenoNevada Department of Wildlife
KeywordsWaterfowlPopulationWildlifeClimate changeHabitatPopulation sizePopulation growthEcologyEnvironmental changeVital ratesPopulation declineBiologyGeographyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Population change is regulated by vital rates that are influenced by environmental conditions, demographic stochasticity, and, increasingly, anthropogenic effects. Habitat destruction and climate change threaten the future of many wildlife populations, and there are additional concerns regarding the effects of harvest rates on demographic components of harvested organisms. Further, many population managers strictly manage harvest of wild organisms to mediate population trends of these populations. The goal of our study was to decouple harvest and environmental variability in a closely monitored population of wild ducks in North America, where we experimentally regulated harvest independently of environmental variation over a period of 4 years. We used 9 years of capture-mark-recapture data to estimate breeding population size during the spring for a population of wood ducks in Nevada. We then assessed the effect of one environmental variable and harvest pressure on annual changes in the breeding population size. Climatic conditions influencing water availability were strongly positively related to population growth rates of wood ducks in our study system. In contrast, harvest regulations and harvest rates did not affect population growth rates. We suggest efforts to conserve waterfowl should focus on the effects of habitat loss in breeding areas and climate change, which will likely affect precipitation regimes in the future. We demonstrate the utility of capture-mark-recapture methods to estimate abundance of species which are difficult to survey and test the impacts of anthropogenic harvest and climate on populations. Finally, our results continue to add to the importance of experimentation in applied conservation biology, where we believe that continued experiments on nonthreatened species will be critically important as researchers attempt to understand how to quantify and mitigate direct anthropogenic impacts in a changing world.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology and EvolutionSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207