Greater Sage-Grouse (<i>Centrocercus</i><i>urophasianus</i>) hen survival: effects of raptors, anthropogenic and landscape features, and hen behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Survival of breeding-age hens has been identified as the demographic rate with the greatest potential to influence population growth of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus (Bonaparte, 1827); hereafter “Sage-Grouse”). During 2008–2011, we collected summer survival data from 427 Sage-Grouse hens in southern Wyoming, USA. We assessed the effects of raptor densities, anthropogenic features, landscape features, and Sage-Grouse hen behavior on Sage-Grouse hen survival. Survival of Sage-Grouse hens was positively associated with the proportion of big sagebrush (genus Artemisia L.) habitat within 0.27 km radius and road density and negatively associated with power-line density, proximity to forested habitat, and topographic ruggedness index within 0.27 km radius (TRI 0.27 ). Raptor densities did not have individual effects on Sage-Grouse survival; however, an interaction between site-specific exposure to Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos (L., 1758)) density (GOEA) and TRI 0.27 indicated that negative effects of GOEA and TRI 0.27 were dampened in areas with both high TRI 0.27 and high GOEA. Survival of nonreproductive hens was greater than brooding or nesting hens. Hens that stayed in intermediate-size flocks and yearling hens had higher survival than hens in small or large flocks and hens >2 years old. Results indicated that risk of death for Sage-Grouse hens was greater relative to potential raptor perches but not anthropogenic and landscape variables that could provide food subsidies for predators.
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".