Effect of camera monitoring on survival rates of High-Arctic shorebird nests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monitoring bird nests with cameras provides an opportunity to identify the cause of nest failure and record the behavior of individuals. However, leaving an object continuously within sight of a nest could have potential negative effects on nesting success. We compared daily survival rates of nests monitored using cameras and human visitation to nests tracked via human visitation only to test for potential additional effects of camera monitoring on predation rates. From 2006 to 2008, experiments were conducted on Bylot Island (Nunavut) using 80 artificial nests and 53 real nests of Baird's Sandpipers (Calidris bairdii) and White-rumped Sandpipers (Calidris fuscicollis). Rates of predation on real and artificial nests varied considerably among years. However, survival rates of camera-monitored nests did not differ from those of nests monitored without cameras. Predators of artificial nests included Arctic foxes (Vulpes lagopus), Glaucous Gulls (Larus hyperboreus), and Long-tailed Jaegers (Stercorarius longicaudus), whereas Arctic foxes were responsible for all camera-recorded predation events at real nests. Camera monitoring should be promoted as a viable method for monitoring nests of Arctic shorebirds because our results indicate that placing cameras at nests does not bias estimates of nest survival obtained via nest visits. SINOPSIS El monitoreo con camaras de los nidos de las aves provee una oportunidad para identificar la causa del fallo de los nidos y para documentar el comportamiento de los individuos. Sin embargo, dejar un objeto continuamente a la vista del nido podria tener efectos negativos sobre el exito de la nidificacion. Comparamos las tasas de supervivencia diaria de nidos monitoreados usando camaras y visitacion de personas a la de los nidos que fueron monitoreados solo mediante la visitacion de personas para determinar si existieron efectos adicionales del monitoreo con camaras a las tasas de depredacion. Desde 2006 – 2008, realizamos experimentos en la Isla de Bylot (Nunavut) usando 80 nidos artificiales y 53 nidos naturales de Calidris bairdii y de C. fuscicollis. Las tasas de depredacion de nidos naturales y artificiales variaron considerablemente entre anos. Sin embargo, las tasas de supervivencia de nidos monitoreados con camaras no tuvieron diferencias con los que fueron monitoreados sin camaras. Los depredadores de nidos artificiales incluyeron zoros (Vulpes lagopus) y aves (Larus hyperboreus y Stercorarius longicaudus). Los zoros fueron responsables para todos los eventos de depredacion de los nidos naturales grabados con las camaras. El monitoreo con camaras deberia ser promovido como un metodo viable para el monitoreo de nidos de playeros en el arctico porque nuestros resultados indican que el uso de las camaras no afecta a las estimaciones de la supervivencia de los nidos obtenidas mediante visitas a los nidos.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".