High variability of migration strategies in a re-established Trumpeter Swan population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The Interior Population (IP) of trumpeter swans ( Cygnus buccinator ), formerly extirpated by market hunting, was re-established in eastern North America by releasing individuals from both migratory and non-migratory populations. Their current annual movement patterns are largely unknown. Our goal was to describe their seasonal movements and quantify the proportion of the IP that is migratory, the extent and phenology of seasonal movements, and associations between movement patterns and breeding status and breeding location. Methods We deployed 113 GPS-GSM transmitters on IP trumpeter swans in six U.S. states and one Canadian province across the current IP breeding range. Using data from 252 ‘swan-years’, we estimated dates of migration events by segmenting the annual cycle using piecewise regression models fit to each yearly time-series of displacement from the breeding site. We fit a latent-state model to characterize population-level associations between breeding latitude and maximum extent of migration, and linear mixed models to quantify associations between individual characteristics (e.g., breeding status, sex) and migration phenology. Results At the individual level, 59% of swans moved to distant non-breeding-period areas (long-distance migration, defined as moving >100 km from the breeding site), 16% exhibited regional migration (25-100 km from breeding site), 19% exhibited non-migratory but local movements (<25 km from breeding site), and 6% exhibited multiple migration strategies. Swans breeding at more-northern latitudes departed their territories earlier in autumn and returned later in the spring than those breeding at more southern latitudes. Breeding swans departed later in the autumn than non-breeders, but breeding status did not have a strong association with arrival in the spring. Conclusion IP trumpeter swans are partial migrants, with a continuum of strategies each year, from local movements to long-distance migration. Much of the variability in movement patterns was related to factors tied to natural history demands (e.g., breeding status) and response to environmental conditions (e.g., through associations with breeding latitude).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".