Supplementary feeding increases Common Buzzard <i><scp>B</scp>uteo buteo</i> productivity but only in poor‐quality habitat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Temporal heterogeneity in the effects of food supply during the breeding season on the productivity of the Common Buzzard Buteo buteo was investigated in a supplementary feeding experiment. Pairs were fed artificially (1) before egg‐laying, (2) after chicks hatched and (3) continuously throughout the season, and compared with (4) unfed controls. Pairs fed before egg‐laying had marginally larger clutches than those not fed, but lay date, egg volume and weight, brood size and hatching success were unaffected. Territorial quality had far greater effects, with pairs nesting in low‐quality habitats (bog, scrub and semi‐natural grassland) laying later and having lower hatching success, smaller broods and fewer fledglings than those in more productive agricultural landscapes. Supplementary feeding after egg hatching neutralized the negative effect of poor habitat, resulting in fed birds having significantly more fledglings. This study emphasizes the importance of food availability when provisioning chicks in suboptimal habitats and has implications for the success of diversionary feeding in reducing game losses to Buzzards.
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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".