Minimum Estimates of Survival and Population Growth for Cerulean Warblers (Dendroica Cerulea) Breeding in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea) tops many lists of species of conservation concern because of severe population declines and habitat loss. Here we present the first robust estimates of annual survival and population growth rates for this species. We used capture—mark—recapture models to estimate survival of adult male Cerulean Warblers in an eastern Ontario population that has been studied since 1994. Adult male survival probability (ϕ) was constant over time in our best-supported model. Our second-best-supported model indicated a negative effect of a 1998 ice storm on survival. The third-best-supported model indicated a significant year effect on survival. On the basis of those results and previously published estimates of annual fecundity, we calculated a population growth rate using a two-stage Leslie matrix. Population growth rate (λ) was 0.73, using the estimate for constant survival. Model elasticities imply that adult mortality had a stronger effect on λ than did seasonal fecundity. Oversummer survival estimates suggest that events during migration or on wintering grounds are responsible for most adult male mortality. It appears that our study population, thought to be one of the healthiest known for this species, may not be currently reproducing at a high enough rate to accommodate adult mortality. However, caution must be used when interpreting those results, given the possibility of underestimating survival and fecundity of this species.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".