Are saltflats suitable supplementary nesting habitats for Malaysian Plovers <i>Charadrius peronii</i> threatened by beach habitat loss in Thailand?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Resort development and coastal beach erosion have led to declines in beach breeding habitat for the near-threatened Malaysian Plover (Charadrius peronii) in the Gulf of Thailand. Semi-natural saltflats may provide supplementary nesting areas. We compared the environmental conditions, incubation behaviour and nesting success of plovers breeding on sandy beaches and saltflats in Thailand. In total we monitored 21 and nine nesting attempts in 2004 (beaches and saltflats, respectively) and 26 and 22 nesting attempts in 2005. Despite higher air temperatures in the saltflats (P < 0.0001), we detected no significant differences in nest attendance (P = 0.542 and P = 0.885 for 2004 and 2005, respectively), number of incubator changes between parents (P = 0.776 and P = 0.823) or number of parental nest departures (P = 0.087 and P = 0.712) during 120 incubation observations on 55 nests. There was also no difference in hatching success between beaches in 2004 (beach = 0.65, saltflat = 0.55; P = 0.692, n = 26) and 2005 (beach = 0.46, saltflat = 0.35; P = 0.539, n = 41). These results suggest that saltflats may provide nesting habitat for Malaysian Plovers and could help enhance overall hatching success rates by reducing nesting densities on beaches. Although there are few remaining intact saltflats in coastal Thailand, there are currently vast areas of abandoned tiger prawn aquaculture ponds that could be rehabilitated into saltflats at relatively low cost. Given the large area of disused aquaculture ponds throughout Thailand and South-East Asia and the substantial human pressure on coastal habitats, there could be considerable conservation benefits to the restoration of aquaculture ponds.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".