An Integrated Population Model for Harvest Management of Atlantic Brant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Atlantic brant (Branta bernicla hrota) are important game birds in the Atlantic Flyway and several long‐term monitoring data sets could assist with harvest management, including a count‐based survey and demographic data. Considering their relative strengths and weaknesses, integrated analysis to these data would likely improve harvest management, but tools for integration have not yet been developed. Managers currently use an aerial count survey on the wintering grounds, the mid‐winter survey, to set harvest regulations. We developed an integrated population model (IPM) for Atlantic brant that uses multiple data sources to simultaneously estimate population abundance, survival, and productivity. The IPM abundance estimates for data from 1975–2018 were less variable than annual mid‐winter survey counts or Lincoln estimates, presumably reflecting better accounting for observer error and incorporation of demographic estimates by the IPM. Posterior estimates of adult survival were high (0.77–0.87), and harvest rates of adults and juveniles were positively correlated with more liberal hunting regulations (i.e., hunting days and the daily bag limit). Productivity was variable, with the percent of juveniles in the winter population ranging from 1% to >40%. We found no evidence for environmental relationships with productivity. Using IPM‐predicted population abundances rather than mid‐winter survey counts alone would have meant fewer annual changes to hunting regulations since 2004. Use of the IPM could improve harvest management for Atlantic brant by providing the ability to predict abundance before annual hunting regulations are set, and by providing more stable hunting regulations, with fewer annual changes. © 2021 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".