MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2036271211 · doi:10.1002/etc.5620210818

Responses of songbirds to aerial spraying of the microbial insecticide <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i> var. <i>kurstaki</i> (Foray 48B®) on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada

2002· article· en· W2036271211 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lennart Sopuck, Kristiina Ovaska, Bruce Whittington

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBacillus thuringiensisAerial applicationInsecticide resistanceBacillalesBiologyPesticideEcologyToxicologyBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Use of bacterial insecticides containing Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki (Btk) is gaining popularity as an environmentally safe control measure against lepidopteran pests, but indirect effects on nontarget organisms through reduced prey base have received little attention. Aerial spraying of Btk (Foray 48B) over a 12,803-ha area on southeastern Vancouver Island (BC, Canada) in May to June 1999 as part of a gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) control program provided us with an opportunity to examine the responses of songbirds to spray application. To obtain an estimate of species richness and relative abundance, we conducted standard songbird point-count surveys in Garry oak (Quercus garryana)-dominated habitats in Btk-sprayed and unsprayed areas in April to June 1999 and, one year after spraying, in 2000. These surveys revealed no patterns consistent with adverse effects of spraying on the relative abundance of adult birds or singing males for any of the species, whether examined individually or when combined into foraging guilds. An exception was the spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus), which in 1999, but not in 2000, occurred at significantly lower numbers in sprayed plots after Btk treatment. Intensive searches of plots in sprayed and unsprayed areas revealed no differences in the numbers of songbird broods between the two areas for any of the species examined.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.580
Threshold uncertainty score0.835

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.167
Teacher spread0.162 · 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

Citations13
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry→Same topicAvian ecology and behavior→French-language works237,207→