MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Biological Case Against Downlisting the Whooping Crane and for Improving Implementation under the Endangered Species Act

2023· preprint· en· W4367050516 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrew J. Caven, Hillary L. Thompson, David M. Baasch, Barry K. Hartup, Amanda Hegg, Stephanie Schmidt, Irvin Louque, Craig R. Allen, Carter G. Crouch, Craig A. Davis, Joel G. Jorgensen, Jane E. Austin, Bethany Ostrom, Richard D. Beilfuss, George W. Archibald, Anne E. Lacy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndangered speciesGrus (genus)Threatened speciesWildlifeWildlife refugeGeographyPopulationEcologyFlywayNational parkCritically endangeredHabitat destructionFisheryHabitatWildlife conservationBiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Whooping Crane (Grus americana; WHCR) is a large, long-lived bird endemic to North America. The remnant population migrates between Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, USA, and Wood Buffalo National Park, Canada (AWBP), and has recovered from a nadir of 15-16 birds in 1941 to ~540 birds in 2022. Two ongoing reintroduction efforts in Louisiana and the Eastern Flyway together total ~150 birds. Evidence indicates the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is strongly considering downlisting the species from an endangered to a threatened status under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We examined the current status of the WHCR through the lens of ESA threat factors, the USFWS’s Species Status Assessment (SSA) framework, and other avian downlisting actions to determine if the action is biologically warranted. Our research indicates that WHCRs are facing an intensification of most threat drivers across populations and important ranges. The AWBP is still relatively small compared to other crane species and most birds of conservation concern. To date, only one avian species has been downlisted from an endangered status with an estimated population of <3,000 individuals. Representation in terms of WHCRs historic genetic, geographic, and life history variation remains limited. Also, the lack of spatial connectivity among populations, reliance of the reintroduced populations on supplementation, and continued habitat loss suggest that WHCR populations may not be resilient to large stochastic disturbances. Given that reintroduced populations are not self-sustaining, neither supplies true redundancy for the AWBP. Proposed downlisting before recovery plan population criteria have been met is objectively unwarranted and reflects USFWS inconsistency across ESA actions. Only by incorporating basic quantitative criteria and added oversight into ESA listing decisions can we avoid an action as misguided as downlisting the Whooping Crane without consideration of its recovery plan criteria or ostensibly its population ecology.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207