Availability of nest sites does not limit population size of southern flying squirrels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among factors that may limit population size, nest site is generally considered important for cavity-nesting species. We tested the hypothesis that nest-site availability limits population size in the southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans) by examining the effect of experimentally increasing the number of nest sites. We compared population sizes before and after adding 100 nest boxes (high-quality nests, increasing overall nest density by at least about 65%) on each of three experimental sites on the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. We also compared the experimental populations with three reference (unmanipulated) sites in a paired-block experimental design. All six populations were similarly monitored with livetrapping grids, and flying squirrels readily nested in the supplemental boxes. We predicted that population size would increase where nest sites were added. No increases in population size were observed after nest boxes were added to the three experimental sites, however, nor were populations higher on the experimental sites than on the reference sites. The lack of increase in population size after nest boxes were added demonstrates that the availability of nest sites was not limiting the size of these populations.
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) | 0.014 | 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".