MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W156276631 · doi:10.5038/2074-1235.31.1.559

Sinking Rates of Dead Birds: Improving Estimates of Seabird Mortality Due to Oiling

2003· article· en· W156276631 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Francis K. Wiese

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine ornithology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMemorial University of Newfoundland
KeywordsSeabirdSink (geography)Uria aalgeFisheryEnvironmental scienceOrnithologyScavengingBiologyEcologyGeographySouthern HemispherePredation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seabird mortality resulting from oil spills is generally assessed based on the number of birds lost at sea. Drift blocks we often employed to determine the loss at sea and because blocks do not sink, but seabird carcasses do, it is essential to determine accurate sinking rates of seabird carcasses to correctly interpret onshore drift block recoveries. To quantify sinking rates of seabird carcasses, to determine possible differences between oiled and unoiled birds, and to investigate the importance of scavenging, I conducted an experiment in St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada, with 54 intact, but previously frozen murres (Uria spp.), the most common victims in oil spills in the Northern Hemisphere. Birds were randomly assigned to clean, lightly oiled (25% of body oiled) or heavily oiled (50% body oiled) categories. Twelve birds of each oiling category were placed into a floating three-chambered wooden-framed pen. The remaining birds were placed in a mesh-screened pen on the wharf. After nine days, randomly assigned carcasses from the floating pen and all birds on land, were opened to simulate partial scavenging. After 19 days, all flesh and muscles were removed from remaining birds to simulate complete scavenging. Changes in the buoyancy of carcasses were determined daily by measuring the amount of added mass (in 5 g increments) necessary to sink them (Burger 1991, cited in Burger and Fry 1993). On average, carcasses remained afloat 8.2 ± 1.0 d (95% C.I. 6.2 - 10.3), with no difference between oiled and unoiled, either floating or on land. Carcasses on land retained buoyancy significantly longer and only 1 carcass sank with the 24 d period. Buoyancy loss was best described by a logistic time-dependent function. When carcasses were scavenged, buoyancy loss increased exponentially. Based on these results, it appears that backwash and subsequent sinking of stranded carcasses is likely not a significant mechanism of carcasses removal from beaches. I recommend using a 10-14 d estimate for the length of time that murres and other auks remain afloat at sea, and to use a time-dependent logistic function to estimate the proportion of birds lost at sea. It appears that most estimates of seabird mortality due to spilled oil based on drift block experiments may be too low because onshore block recoveries relevant to seabird carcasses have been over-estimated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations53
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine ornithology→Same topicAvian ecology and behavior→French-language works237,207→