Effects of blood collection on wild birds: an update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blood sampling is often critical for answering a variety of questions about wild birds. However, it is important to assess the impacts, if any, of blood collection on wild birds. Here, we examined the effects of blood sampling on adults or nestlings in three species of free‐living birds. First, we examined the effects of blood collection on annual survival and reproductive success in adult buff‐breasted wrens Thryothorus leucotis in Panama. In adult wrens, blood collection from the brachial vein during the breeding season had no effect on annual survival or reproductive success. Second, we examined whether blood collection influenced mass gain in developing smooth‐billed anis Crotophaga ani in Puerto Rico. In developing anis, blood collection from the femoral or jugular veins had no effect on mass gain of nestlings. Third, in developing European starlings Sturnus vulgaris in British Columbia, Canada, blood collection from the brachial vein had no effect of body condition. Blood collection from the jugular vein had a transient effect on body condition during the first week post‐hatch, but this effect disappeared by the second week of age. Lastly, we present an extensive up‐to‐date review of the literature on the effects of blood collection on free‐living avian species. Taken together, these data show that blood collection has no major negative effects on developing or adult birds in the wild.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".