Explaining the divergence of population trajectories for two interacting waterfowl species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Identifying the specific environmental features and associated density‐dependent processes that limit population growth is central to both ecology and conservation. Comparative assessments of sympatric species allow for inference about how ecologically similar species differentially respond to their shared environment, which can be used to inform community‐level conservation strategies. Comparative assessments can nevertheless be complicated by interactions and feedback loops among the species in question. We developed an integrated population model based on 61 years of ecological data describing the demographic histories of Canvasbacks ( Aythya valisineria ) and Redheads ( Aythya americana ), two species of migratory diving ducks that utilize similar breeding habitats and affect each other's demography through interspecific nest parasitism. We combined this model with a transient life table response experiment to determine the extent that demographic rates, and their contributions to population growth, were similar between these two species. We found that demographic rates and, to a lesser extent, their contributions to population growth covaried between Canvasbacks and Redheads, but the trajectories of population abundances widely diverged between the two species during the end of the twentieth century due to inherent differences between the species life histories and sensitivities to both environmental variation and harvest pressure. We found that annual survival of both species increased during years of restrictive harvest regulations; however, recent harvest pressure on female Canvasbacks may be contributing to population declines. Despite periodic, and often dramatic, increases in breeding abundance during wet years, the number of breeding Canvasbacks declined by 13% whereas the number of breeding Redheads has increased by 37% since 1961. Reductions in harvest pressure and improvements in submerged aquatic vegetation throughout the wintering grounds have mediated the extent to which populations of both species contracted during dry years in the Prairie Pothole Region. However, continued degradation of breeding habitats through climate‐related shifts in wetland hydrology and agricultural conversion of surrounding grassland habitats may have exceeded the capacity for demographic compensation during the nonbreeding season.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".