Breeding populations of Marbled Godwits and Willets have high annual survival and strong site fidelity to managed wetlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Prairie Pothole Region of central Canada supports a diverse community of breeding waterbirds, but many species have declining populations and the demographic mechanisms driving the declines remain unknown. We conducted a 7‐year field study during 1995–2001 to investigate the demographic performance of Marbled Godwits ( Limosa fedoa ) and Willets ( Tringa semipalmata ) breeding in managed wetlands near Brooks, Alberta. Mark‐recapture analyses based on Cormack–Jolly–Seber models revealed that the annual rates of apparent survival for Marbled Godwits ( = 0.953 ± 0.012SE) and Willets ( = 0.861 ± 0.015SE) are among the highest rates of survivorship reported for any breeding or nonbreeding population of large‐bodied shorebirds. Our estimates of life expectancy for males were comparable to longevity records in godwits (17.3 years ±5.8SE vs. 25–29+ years) and willets (7.7 ± 1.5SE vs. 10+ years). The two species both showed strong breeding site fidelity but differed in rates of mate fidelity. Pairs that reunited and males that switched mates usually nested <300 m from their previous nests, whereas females that switched mates usually moved longer distances >1.1–1.5 km. Returning pairs usually reunited in godwits (85%) but not in willets (28%), possibly because of species differences in adult survival or patterns of migration. Baseline estimates of annual survival for banded‐only birds will be useful for evaluating the potential effects of new tracking tags or the environmental changes that have occurred during the past 20 years. Conservation strategies for large‐bodied shorebirds should be focused on reduction of exposure to anthropogenic mortality because low rates of natural mortality suggest that losses to collisions at breeding sites or harvest at nonbreeding areas are likely to cause additive mortality.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".