Density‐dependent effects on nesting success of temperate‐breeding Canada geese
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Density‐dependent effects on reproduction can arise through variation in habitat quality or increased competition and interference among neighbours. Negative effects have been found in avian populations and these have been mainly attributed to food limitations. In this study, we investigated whether density‐dependent effects could result from either heterogeneity in habitat suitability, interference among neighbours, or predation. To test these hypotheses, we collected data over eight years in a growing population of temperate‐nesting Canada geese Branta canadensis maxima . We compared different parameters of nesting success of geese between two sites characterized by different nest densities and looked at the effects of nest proximity on these parameters within each site. At the landscape level, we found density‐dependent effects due to variation in habitat quality associated with predation probabilities and flooding events. At a finer scale, nesting success declined with proximity to neighbours, probably due to increased aggressive interactions among pairs. However, complete clutch predation showed both positive and negative density‐dependence, due to differences in predator community at each site. We concluded that density‐dependent effects reduced nesting success of Canada geese through both heterogeneity in habitat safety and agonistic interference between neighbours but that density‐dependent effects could also be positive in some instances.
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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".