Factors That Affect Renesting in Mallards (<i>Anas platyrhynchos</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Renesting is an important strategy for coping with nest loss in many species of birds. We investigated renesting behavior of radiomarked Mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) breeding in the Canadian Prairie Parklands and found that females were persistent renesters, replacing >57% of 4,112 destroyed nests. Renesting propensity was most affected by nest initiation date, with ∼90% of unsuccessful females renesting if destroyed clutches had been initiated in April but <10% renesting for clutches initiated after 20 June. Probability of renesting declined with successive number of nesting attempts, but this was primarily an effect of initiation date. Renesting propensity increased with female age and body condition and declined for birds that had invested more time tending their previous clutch, but the latter effect was pronounced only among late-nesting females. The amount of time required to produce a replacement clutch was primarily a function of whether females were engaged in rapid follicle growth when nest failure occurred: 44% of females (383 of 870) that lost nests during early laying renested within 4 days, whereas only 2% (12 of 639) that lost nests after clutch completion renested within 4 days. Although clutch size was smaller in renests, this was entirely an artifact of later laying dates. Our results suggest that seasonal timing had the most influence on renesting behavior. Female age, body condition, and prior nesting effort had smaller, but demonstrable, influence.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".