Influence of rodent abundance on nesting success of prairie waterfowl
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most waterfowl nesting failure in the prairie biome is attributed to predation. However, the contribution of small mammal abundance to the prairie predator–prey cycle and how this affects waterfowl productivity is not known. We modelled seasonal variability of nesting success, including a number of habitat and nest-related variables, to quantify influence of rodent abundance for prairie nesting waterfowl for six study sites in the Prairie Pothole Region of Canada, 1996–1998. We estimated there is a curvilinear relationship between the abundance of meadow voles ( Microtus pennsylvanicus (Ord, 1815)) and the nesting success of ducks. The relationship has characteristics of the alternate prey hypothesis at low vole density and characteristics of the shared prey hypothesis at higher densities. At low vole densities, duck nests appear to be buffered from predation by voles but, at higher densities, nesting success was affected negatively. We recommend that predator–prey dynamics should be included as an integral part of management plans for nesting waterfowl and suggest further research using rigorous experiment design to elucidate mechanisms and pathways responsible for this observed relationship.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".