MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3114215872 · doi:10.1002/jwmg.21987

Canada Goose Survival and Recovery Rates in Urban and Rural Areas of Iowa, USA

2020· article· en· W3114215872 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Benjamin Z. Luukkonen, Orrin E. Jones, Robert W. Klaver

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIowa Department of Natural Resources
KeywordsFlywayJuvenileBrantaGeographyWaterfowlRange (aeronautics)EcologyBiologyDemographyGooseHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Once extirpated from much of their North American range, temperate‐breeding Canada geese ( Branta canadensis maxima ) have reached high abundance. As a result, focus has shifted from restoration to managing harvest and addressing human‐goose conflict. Conflict persists or is increasing in urban areas throughout the Mississippi Flyway. Managers need more information regarding demographic rates to determine how hunting affects geese breeding in urban areas and what management actions may be required to achieve management goals. We estimated survival, dead recovery, live recapture, and fidelity probabilities using data from 77,872 Canada geese banded in Iowa, USA, during 1999–2019 using Burnham joint live‐dead band recovery models. Factors predicted to affect parameters in candidate models included age (juvenile, subadult, adult), banding site (urban, rural), time, trend, harvest regulation index, and winter severity index. We predicted Canada geese banded in urban areas would have higher survival and lower dead recovery rates than geese banded at rural sites. The top model indicated support for age and banding site effects, and trends in survival and recovery rate (Brownie parameterization). Adult survival was similar for urban (0.75; range = 0.60–0.92) and rural (0.75; range = 0.66–0.82) geese and relatively constant across years. Mean juvenile survival was lower in urban (0.74; range = 0.48–0.93) than rural (0.85; range = 0.68–0.92) areas. Survival increased for urban‐banded juveniles and recovery rates increased during liberalization of harvest regulations and decreased after regulations stabilized. Recovery rates of subadults increased for the urban and rural groups. Our results suggest Canada geese breeding in urban areas contribute to harvest and specialized regulations can affect these populations. Harvest regulations in place during our analysis may not have reached a threshold required to observe substantial changes in survival. Current human‐goose conflict in urban areas suggests survival has not decreased to a level required to completely address conflict via reduction in goose abundance. Managers may consider additional liberalization of harvest regulations and monitoring via banding to determine to what degree hunter harvest contributes to reducing human‐goose conflict and what additional management actions will be required to achieve goals. © 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 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 score0.649
Threshold uncertainty score0.706

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207