MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1513852906 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v128i4.1627

Habitat selection and nest success of the Upland Sandpiper (<em>Bartramia longicauda</em>) in Ivvavik National Park, Yukon, Canada

2015· article· en· W1513852906 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Valerie Miller, Erica Nol, Linh P. Nguyen, Devin M. Turner

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsParks CanadaTrent University
FundersParks Canada
KeywordsSandpiperNest (protein structural motif)EcologyHabitatGeographyNational parkVegetation (pathology)Home rangePopulationRange (aeronautics)GrasslandBiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda) is a grassland shorebird species associated primarily with prairie habitats in central North America. A disjunct and poorly studied population also occurs in Yukon, Canada, and Alaska, United States. We studied habitat selection of nesting Upland Sandpipers in Ivvavik National Park, Yukon, at the scales of microhabitat (1-m radius around nest) and putative home range (11.3-m radius plots at nests and within 50 m of nest). At the microhabitat scale, the Upland Sandpiper selected nest sites with lower visibility from above than that of their home range (median 91.5%, range 70–98% versus median 99.0%, range 85–100%) and less-variable composition of vegetation than at random sites within the home range. Vegetation adjacent to the nest in the eastern quadrat was significantly shorter (mean ± standard error: 10.6 ± 1.55 cm) than that in other directions around the nest (> 13 cm); nest sites and microsites within home ranges were more often hummocky than random sites in the park. At the mesohabitat scale, Upland Sandpipers selected sites within home ranges with fewer trees than random sites within the park (10.3 ± 3.0 trees per 11.3-m-radius plot around nest versus 32.9 ± 5.9 trees per 11.3-m-radius plot in the park) and greater herbaceous cover (70.7% ± 3.0% versus 56.2% ± 3.7%). Despite the disproportionate use of sites with fewer trees, more herbaceous cover, and lower vertical visibility, these factors did not relate to nest success in our sample. Of the 24 nests found in 2010 and 2011, 22 contained four eggs and 2 contained three eggs. Upland Sandpipers at this high latitude site had a nesting success rate of 0.85 ± 0.01 and 0.56 ± 0.01 in 2010 and 2011, respectively, for a 21-day incubation period. Further assessment of the selected characteristics of nesting sites will improve our ability to predict the effects of northward shrub and tree encroachment on this grassland species.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.367
Threshold uncertainty score0.532

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207