Do land-use patterns influence nest-site selection by burrowing owls (<i>Athene cunicularia hypugaea</i>) in northeastern Colorado?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Populations of western burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) are declining. In the Great Plains this decline maybe related to a decline in black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) towns that the owls use for nest sites. One potential cause of prairie dog decline is conversion of native prairie to agriculture. We predicted that owl-occupied prairie dog towns would be in less fragmented landscapes that contain more prairie then owl-unoccupied prairie dog towns. To test this prediction, we used a geographic information system and spatial analysis metrics to examine the landscape within 1000 and 2500 m radius circles surrounding prairie dog towns in the shortgrass prairie in northeastern Colorado. We compared landscape features of irrigated cropland, non-irrigated cropland, and shortgrass patches around owl-unoccupied (N = 7) and owl-occupied (N = 15) prairie dog towns at these two spatial scales. Contrary to our predictions, at the 2500-m scale burrowing owls prefer to nest in towns surrounded by a landscape in which shortgrass patches were a smaller percentage of the total landscape, relatively far apart from other shortgrass patches, and more numerous then crop patches. At the 1000-m scale owls nested in towns in which shortgrass patches were a smaller percentage of the total surrounding landscape. In Logan County owls may select nest sites in prairie dog towns in more fragmented landscapes because prey availability maybe higher than in less fragmented landscapes and (or) prairie dog control programs may be more active on shortgrass rangelands than in croplands. In addition, the level of fragmentation in our study area (62% of the study area is occupied by native grassland) may not be high enough to have negative consequences on nest occupancy of burrowing owls. However, it is difficult to generalize about the effects of landscape fragmentation on burrowing owls because any effects are probably a complex function of local habitat structure, landscape structure, and local prey and predator availability.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".