Consistent apparent adult survival and nest‐site fidelity of whimbrel <i>Numenius phaeopus</i> near Churchill, Manitoba, Canada over a 40 year period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reliable estimates of adult survival for many shorebird species are lacking. We used Cormack–Jolly–Seber (CJS) methods to provide an estimate of apparent, or local, survival (φ) of a population of whimbrels, Numenius phaeopus , breeding in the subarctic Churchill, Manitoba region. We used data collected in two time‐periods: 1973–1976 and 2010–2014. We also quantified nest‐site fidelity in 2010–2014 to provide context to our apparent survival estimates because mark‐recapture analyses cannot distinguish between mortality and permanent emigration. The most parsimonious CJS model did not include effects of sex or time on apparent adult survival in either period (φ = 0.76 ± 0.13 SE; φ = 0.75 ± 0.04 SE, 1973–1976 and 2010–2014, respectively). Additionally, observations of marked whimbrels between 2010 and 2019 (n = 124) showed that 61 of the 105 marked individuals (58.1%) were resighted. These estimates of return rates are, as expected, much lower than estimates of apparent survival. The median year‐to‐year distance between nests (n = 139) in 2010 to 2014 was 198 m ± 88 SE and did not differ significantly (p = 0.84) between females (x̄ = 721.9 m ± 119.8 SE) and males (x̄ = 720.3 m ± 83.1 SE). If our apparent survival estimate is indicative of true survivorship, then adult mortality during the non‐breeding season has remained constant over the last five decades, implying that the recent decline in whimbrel populations may stem largely from reduced fecundity, including egg or juvenile survival, rather than primarily from reduced adult survival.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".