Optimal conditions for breeding of captive humboldt penguins (<i>Spheniscus humboldti</i>): A survey of British zoos
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We surveyed 16 British zoos and bird gardens to assess the optimal conditions for breeding of captive Humboldt penguins ( Spheniscus humboldti ). We obtained information on population, enclosure, and husbandry characteristics and related these variables to three measures of per capita breeding success, namely, per capita egg productivity, chick productivity, and hatching success (measured as the proportion of eggs laid that hatched). All three fitness measures increased with an increasing number of breeding pairs and total population size but were not related to population density. Once the effect of number of breeding pairs was removed statistically, chick productivity was found to be highest when nesting boxes were lined with sand and gravel instead of alternative substrata such as twigs or vegetation. Hatching success increased with increasing pool size and was highest in enclosures with concrete floors. Adult mortality in zoos was generally low and appeared related to the use of chlorine in freshwater pools and to the presence of other penguin species in Humboldt penguin displays. Several enclosure and husbandry parameters were not variable enough to assess their impact on reproduction of captive Humboldt penguins. Recommendations for optimising conditions for captive breeding of Humboldt penguins include keeping as large a population as possible in a concrete enclosure with a large pool area, while providing sand and gravel as nesting material. Bird density may be important but we did not detect detrimental effects on breeding for densities up to 0.25 birds m –2 . Adult mortality can be minimised by exhibiting Humboldt penguins in single‐species display and avoiding chlorination of pool water. An experimental approach is recommended to confirm the results of this correlational study. Zoo Biol 20:545–555, 2001. © 2002 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it