EFFECTS OF NECK BANDS ON REPRODUCTION AND SURVIVAL OF FEMALE GREATER SNOW GEESE
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An assumption of mark–recapture studies is that the marker has no effect on the animal. Neck bands have been used extensively for goose research, but there has long been concern that they may have negative effects on some demographic parameters, and recent studies have yielded contradictory results. We evaluated the effects of neck bands on adult female greater snow geese (Chen caerulescens atlantica) by contrasting breeding propensity and apparent survival of geese marked with both a plastic neck band and a metal leg band and those marked solely with metal leg bands over an 11-year period on Bylot Island, Nunavut Territory, Canada. The use of multistate mark–recapture models also allowed us to estimate neck band loss and to obtain survival and capture probabilities that were not biased by such loss. Finally, we tested the effects of neck bands on other reproductive parameters (laying date, clutch size and nest success) over a 3-year period. Neck-banded females had decreased clutch size and capture probabilities, but their apparent survival rate, nest initiation and hatching dates, and nest survival were not affected compared to leg-banded only or unbanded females. Breeding propensity, indexed by capture probabilities of neck-banded females was, on average, 48% lower that that of leg-banded-only females but clutch size was only 10% lower. Neck band loss of females was low in this population (3% per year). We urge researchers to be cautious in the use of neck bands for estimation of population parameters and that the potential negative effects of neck bands be assessed as it is likely to be species-specific.
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.
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 it