Winter Survival of Female Ring‐Necked Ducks in the Southern Atlantic Flyway
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT North American waterfowl harvest regulations are largely guided by the status of breeding populations. Nonetheless, understanding the demographics of wintering waterfowl populations can elucidate the effects of hunting pressure on population dynamics. The ring‐necked duck (Aythya collaris) breeds and winters in all North American administrative flyways and is one of the most abundant and most harvested diving ducks in the Atlantic Flyway. But few studies have investigated the winter ecology of ring‐necked ducks. We used a known‐fate analysis to estimate period survival probability using data from 87 female ring‐necked ducks marked with satellite transmitters in 2 regions of the southern Atlantic Flyway during winters of 2017–2018 and 2018–2019. Winter (128‐day) survival probability was higher for individuals in the Red Hills region of southern Georgia and northern Florida (0.875, 95% CI = 0.691–0.952) than individuals in central South Carolina (0.288, 95% CI = 0.082–0.514). We attribute the regional disparity in winter survival probabilities to differences in hunting pressure, which are reflected in the number of harvests we observed in each region. Our findings warrant further investigation into regional variation in winter survival of southern Atlantic Flyway ring‐necked ducks, and, specifically, the relationship between variable harvest pressure and winter survival and its influence on ring‐necked duck population dynamics and adaptive harvest management decisions. © 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".