MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Indicators of habitat quality and the reproductive output of a forest songbird in small and large fragments

2001· article· en· W2142151948 on OpenAlexaff
Liana Zanette

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Avian Biology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of New England
KeywordsSongbirdBiologyReproductive successPopulationHabitatEcologyZoologyOffspringDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The distribution of individuals among habitats that vary in quality (i.e. resource availability) may affect reproductive output at a population level. I compared indicators of habitat quality including the breeding experience ratios (inexperienced:experienced birds), turnover rates, pairing success, and densities of a forest songbird, the Eastern Yellow Robin Eopsaltria australis , in two small, food‐poor forest fragments, with those in two large, food‐rich fragments. I then evaluated the likelihood that the breeding experience ratio affected the reproductive output of populations. Inexperienced males occurred in small fragments eight times as often as in large fragments. Male turnover rates were 1.5 times higher in the small than large fragments, and 20% (10/50) of the male population were unpaired in the small fragments compared to 0% (0/25) in the large. None of these measures differed significantly for females. Experienced birds of both sexes produced almost all of the offspring compared with inexperienced birds. Despite these findings, reproductive output did not vary with fragment size for robins. Thus, while breeding experience clearly influenced the reproductive success of individuals, there were no obvious population consequences of having disproportionately more inexperienced males in the small fragments. I conclude that while male traits may be good indicators of resource levels within fragments (specifically, food availability), they may not be adequate predictors of population performance. Thus, the reproductive output of populations must be measured directly before conclusions concerning population performance can be made. Interestingly, breeding densities were not accurate indicators of either resource levels or population performance. Densities were two times higher in the smaller fragments, and I suggest that this result reflects problems with male dispersal among fragments caused by isolation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations62
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Avian BiologySame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207