MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226190188 · doi:10.1002/jwmg.22226

Space use and site fidelity of wintering whooping cranes on the Texas Gulf Coast

2022· article· en· W4226190188 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew J. Butler, David R. Stewart, Grant Harris, Mark T. Bidwell, Aaron P. Yetter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersU.S. Geological SurveyU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
KeywordsGrus (genus)Home rangeGeographyEcologyRange (aeronautics)PopulationBayDemographyBiologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Aransas‐Wood Buffalo population (the only non‐reintroduced, migratory population) of endangered whooping cranes (Grus americana) overwinters along the Texas Gulf Coast, USA. Understanding whooping crane space use on the wintering grounds reveals essential aspects of this species' ecology, which subsequently assists with conservation. Using global positioning system telemetry data from marked whooping cranes during 2009–2017, we fit continuous‐time stochastic process models to describe movement and home range using autocorrelated kernel density estimation (AKDE) and explored variation in home range size in relation to age, sex, reproductive status, and drought conditions. We used the Bhattacharyya coefficient of overlap and distance between home range centroids to quantify site fidelity. We examined the effects of time between winter home ranges and the sex of the crane on site fidelity using Bayesian mixed‐effects beta regression. Winter whooping crane 95% AKDE home range size averaged 30.1 ± 45.2 (SD) km2 (median = 14.3, range = 1.1–308.6). Home ranges of sub‐adult females were approximately 2 times larger than those of sub‐adult males or families. As drought worsened, home ranges typically expanded. Between consecutive years, the home ranges of an adult crane exhibited 68 ± 31% overlap (site fidelity), but fidelity to winter sites declined in subsequent winters. The overlap of adult home ranges with the nearest unrelated family averaged 33 ± 28%. As a whooping crane aged, overlap with its winter home range as a juvenile declined, regardless of sex. By 4 years of age, a whooping crane had approximately 14 ± 28% overlap with its juvenile winter home range. Limited evidence suggested male whooping cranes return to within 2 km of their juvenile home range by their fifth winter. Previous data obtained from aerial surveys led ecologists to assume that whooping crane families normally used small areas (~2 km2) and expressed persistent site fidelity. Our analyses showed <8% of families had home ranges ≤2 km2, with the average area 15 times greater, and waning site fidelity over time. Our work represents an analysis of whooping crane home ranges for this population, identifying past misconceptions of winter space use and resulting in better estimates of space requirements for future conservation efforts.

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 score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207