WINTER DISTRIBUTION OF SANDHILL CRANES FROM UPPER MICHIGAN AND\nADJACENT ONTARIO—A THIRTY-YEAR PERSPECTIVE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between areas used for breeding and wintering by the expanding Eastern Population of greater sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis tabida) has been little studied. During 1985-1988, 32/33 (97%) of sandhill cranes VHFradiotagged on Seney National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan were subsequently located on wintering areas in wet prairies, muck farms, and improved pastures in Florida and southern Georgia. Four additional radiotagged cranes from other areas of Upper Michigan and 7 from the North Channel of Lake Huron, Ontario, were also located in similar areas and habitats. Winter area was not dependent on summer location, but there was a tendency for cranes from the eastern portion of Seney NWR to winter near Blue Cypress Lake in south-central Florida. With few exceptions, individual cranes remained on their respective primary winter areas through January until late February when spring migration began. Fidelity to wintering areas from year to year was 85%. Winter distribution of cranes from Upper Michigan and adjacent Ontario was similar to the widespread but clumped distribution exhibited by the entire Great Lakes population. Comparable recent data (2010-2018) from other studies demonstrated expansion of winter distribution of Upper Michigan and Ontario cranes along the migration route from Indiana to Florida, similar to the Eastern Population of greater sandhill cranes in general. More limited wetland habitat north of Florida often resulted in larger flocks dependent on roost sites on public land rather than the more dispersed distribution in the historical winter areas in Florida. Although the Eastern Population of sandhill cranes has increased from 30,000 to possibly 90,000 or more individuals during the past 30 years, little recent research on wintering has occurred, especially within the changing landscape of Florida. Further documentation of crane numbers, areas used, and current roosting and feeding habitat is needed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".