Comparative reproductive parameters of sympatric Lesser Scaup (<i>Aythya affinis</i>) and Ring-necked Duck (<i>Aythya collaris</i>) in parkland Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Waterfowl managers are concerned that Lesser Scaup (Aythya affinis) breeding populations remain below conservation goals. Contrasting population growth trajectories for sympatric, phylogenetically similar Lesser Scaup and Ring-necked Duck (Aythya collaris) at Erickson, Manitoba, Canada, prompted investigations that might help explain these trends and provide insight for population management of both species. We collected data (2008–2018) on productivity (broods/pair), water levels, hatching dates, age class-specific brood sizes, duckling daily survival rate, and brood female response to disturbance and compared results between species over time. Ring-necked Duck productivity was greater (0.42 versus 0.28, P < 0.01), hatching dates were earlier (19 July versus 27 July, P < 0.001), and females attempted to hide their broods more often than did Lesser Scaup (16% versus 3%, P < 0.001), but Ring-necked Duck age class-specific brood sizes were smaller than for Lesser Scaup (Ia broods: 6.1 versus 6.8, P = 0.02; IIa broods: 5.6 versus 6.2, P = 0.02). Duckling daily survival rates were similar. Productivity of both species was positively related to annual change in pond water level and both demonstrated similar rates of response to change. There was no support for an association between productivity and one- or two-year lagged pond water levels. Consistent with previous findings, our results suggest that greater Ring-necked Duck productivity is a likely proximate cause for the differing population growth trajectories between the species. We suggest that better Ring-necked Duck nest placement may be a contributing factor to the greater nest success observed.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".