Eradication of black rats <i>Rattus rattus</i> from Anacapa Island
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Removing invasive rats from islands is a powerful conservation tool, and practitioners are now targeting larger islands for rat eradication. As they do so, they face the challenge of mitigating for potential non-target impacts on native biodiversity that may be susceptible to rodenticides. We report on the eradication of black rats Rattus rattus from Anacapa Island, California, in 2001–2002, which was the first-ever invasive rodent eradication from an entire island where an endemic rodent was present and the first aerial application of a rodenticide in North America. As a mitigation strategy we staggered the rodenticide application over 2 years and held a representative sample of the Anacapa deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus anacapae in captivity. We also mitigated for bird species potentially susceptible to brodifacoum poisoning and monitored aspects of the terrestrial and marine environments. The free-ranging native rodent population severely declined following rodenticide applications but reintroduction and translocation efforts were successful, and the population quickly recovered to pre-eradication levels. Non-target impacts also included mortality of raptors, gulls and passerines, including high mortality of rufous-crowned sparrows Aimophila ruficeps obscura despite planned mitigation. All observed non-target impacts are expected to be ephemeral; however, further monitoring should reveal details on the dynamics of those impacts. Brodifacoum was not detected in the marine environment or in significant amounts in terrestrial soil, plants and arthropods. Seabird benefits from the rat eradication were quickly realized.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".