Changes in Canadian seabird populations and ecology since 1970 in relation to changes in oceanography and food webs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Systematic monitoring of seabird populations in Canada has been ongoing since the 1920s and the monitoring of diets and other biological indicators of ecosystem change started in the 1970s. Long-term monitoring of population parameters began in the 1980s. These studies originally were conducted mainly by the Canadian Wildlife Service, but subsequently have involved several universities and nongovernment organization groups. We review the results of this monitoring from the 1970s onwards for six oceanographic regions to assess population trends among Canadian seabirds and correlated trends in diets, phenology, and other breeding biology variables. Within regions, trends in most variables studied have been broadly congruent, but there was often variation among regions. In particular, seabird populations in the Pacific coast zone affected by the California Current upwelling system have shown generally negative trends since the 1980s, whereas trends for populations of the same species to the north of this zone have been mainly positive. Likewise, on the east coast, trends at Arctic colonies have been decoupled from those at colonies around Newfoundland and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, especially since the major cold water event of the early 1990s. Several long-term studies have shown an association between population events and diet and phenology changes. Diet and indicators of condition (chick growth, reproductive success) sometimes responded very rapidly to oceanic changes, making them excellent signals of ecosystem perturbations. The review highlights the effects of decadal-scale regime shifts on Canadian seabirds, confirms the value of long-term studies and supports the applicability of single-site observations to regional populations.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".