Response of American kestrels and gray-tailed voles to vegetation height and supplemental perches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We tested the behavioral and demographic responses of American kestrels, Falco sparverius, and gray-tailed voles, Microtus canicaudus, to vegetation height and addition of perches. We conducted our experiment in sixteen 0.2-ha rodent enclosures with four replicates assigned to each of the following treatments: tall vegetation without perches, tall vegetation with perches, short vegetation without perches, and short vegetation with perches. The enclosures were stocked with 20 gray-tailed voles in early November 1998. Before perches were erected during the 12th week of the experiment, kestrels showed a preference for short-vegetation enclosures (P < 0.05). After perches were erected, kestrels used enclosures with perches, showing the greatest preference for short-vegetation enclosures with a perch. Vole populations and recruitment rates were higher in tall-vegetation enclosures than in short-vegetation enclosures, but supplemental perches did not affect vole populations or recruitment. In many agricultural areas where perches are not available, providing supplemental perches may increase accessibility to prey species that cause crop damage. Facilitating predation by raptors may reduce vole populations and reduce the need to use potentially harmful chemicals in pest population management.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".