Band Wear and Effects on Recovery and Survival Estimates of Diving Ducks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Wildlife biologists commonly use marked individuals to estimate population size and vital rates. If markers are lost or become too illegible to be reported (which we define as functional loss), population size and vital rates derived from marked individuals could be biased. We double‐banded 4,990 lesser scaup ( Aythya affinis ) and 1,429 redheads ( A. americana ) with a traditionally used band made of aluminum, plus another band made of incoloy designed to be more resistant to wear. Banding took place at 10 late‐summer banding stations in the northcentral United States and Canada during 2009 and 2010 and during spring at Pool 19 on the Mississippi River, Iowa, USA, during 2009–2011. We then examined bands recovered from hunter‐shot birds to assess wear of paired bands. We also conducted band‐recovery analyses to test for differences in band retention and reporting rates between birds banded with aluminum versus hard metal bands. Band wear assessments indicated that incoloy bands lost zero mass over time and showed no effects of wear. Although no bands were lost, aluminum bands showed significant mass loss and wear over time. For double‐banded lesser scaup recovered in their fourth year after banding, 71.9% of aluminum bands had contact information that was completely unreadable, compared with only 12.5% for those worn by redheads. Based on our recent double‐band recovery data, up to 34% of lesser scaup bands would be recovered during the fifth through eighth hunting seasons of band wear. Band wear affected estimated recovery rates of both species, with stronger effects in lesser scaup. Our results indicate that use of aluminum bands resulted in a substantial loss of information; thus, banders should only use bands made of hard metal alloys (e.g., incoloy or stainless steel), and discontinue all use of aluminum bands for these species and other diving ducks with sparse recovery data. Future demographic analyses using banding data for species with excessive band wear and low numbers of band‐recoveries should account for band type and functional band loss. © 2020 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".