Common Eider (<i>Somateria mollissima v-nigrum</i>) Nest Cover and Depredation on Central Alaskan Beaufort Sea Barrier Islands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Female common eiders (Somateria mollissima v-nigrum) generally select nest sites in areas with driftwood cover. Previous studies of common eiders have shown a positive relationship between nest success and driftwood cover. Our observations led us to hypothesize that cover does not enhance nest success when mammalian predators are present. To evaluate nest cover selection in common eiders, we examined five years of nesting data to determine the interactions between the probability of nest activity and the amount of driftwood cover in the presence of avian versus mammalian predators. Most common eider nests were surrounded by low (40%) or moderate (38%) driftwood cover. Nest failure rates were high (32%– 95%), and arctic foxes (Alopex lagopus), alone or with polar bears (Ursus maritimus), appeared to be more destructive than glaucous gulls (Larus hyperboreus) to eider nests. Logistic regression was used to model common eider nest activity associated with driftwood cover and predators. When glaucous gulls were the only predators, more driftwood cover consistently increased the probability of nest activity. But when foxes were present, nest activity consistently decreased with increasing cover. Our models support our observations that nest cover was beneficial to eiders when glaucous gulls alone were predators. Driftwood cover may be most important for the thermal and structural protection it offers, rather than for the camouflage it provides. The energetic benefit provided by driftwood windbreaks coupled with the common eider’s behavioral response of decreased nest attendance, or increased exposure to avian depredation of nests as energy reserves are depleted during incubation, provides an explanatory mechanism for our model results.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".