A Tropical Volcano, High Predation Pressure, and Breeding Biology of Arctic Waterbirds: A Circumpolar Review of Breeding Failure in the Summer of 1992
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although periodic breeding failures of Arctic-nesting birds on a regional scale are common, a breeding failure encompassing almost the entire Arctic in the same year is exceptional. In the spring and summer of 1992, however, the aerosol cloud resulting from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo (Philippines) had reached the high northern latitudes and caused significant cooling in most of the Arctic, with widespread negative consequences for Arctic-breeding birds. At the same time, low abundance of small rodents and high abundance of predators presented additional problems for breeding birds in parts of the Palearctic. We compiled data on breeding biology of Arctic waterfowl and waders from more than 30 field studies to illuminate in what ways the circumpolar bad weather and predation influenced the breeding season of Arctic birds in 1992. Most projects reported a higher proportion of nonbreeders and a delayed onset of nest initiation compared to other years. Hatching and fledging success of the low number of late breeders was reduced. In addition, some projects reported lower clutch sizes and increased adult mortality. Detailed data from field studies are complemented by data on overall reproductive success of waterfowl and wader populations collected from staging and wintering grounds. In total, there was an almost complete reproductive failure for waders and waterfowl throughout the Arctic in 1992, suggesting a short-term effect on global waterbird populations. This is an example of climatic fluctuations influencing reproductive biology of a group of species on a circumpolar scale.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".