Postharvest regeneration, sciurid abundance, and postfledging survival and movements in an Ovenbird population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several studies have emphasized the importance of postfledging survival when estimating avian population growth rates, yet high variation exists in reported estimates. Mechanisms influencing postfledging survival also remain poorly understood. The influences of local habitat quality and landscape context on postfledging movements also remain largely undocumented. We measured daily postfledging survival and movements in Ovenbirds (Seiurus aurocapilla) in selection cut plots (30–40% basal area removal) and controls. Specifically, we tested predictions from the “concealment” hypothesis (higher survival/shorter movements with increased fledgling concealment), “body condition” hypothesis (higher survival/longer movements with increased body mass), and “predator abundance” hypothesis (higher survival/shorter movements when predator abundance is low) by monitoring fledgling survival (n = 55) and movements (n = 41) during the first 2 weeks postfledging. Fledglings were monitored over 2 breeding seasons in 5 pairs of experimental plots, 25 ha each (1 control and 1 treated plot per pair), located in mature hardwood stands. We found support for an effect of predator abundance on survival (i.e. effects of plot-level abundance of red squirrels and year). Models including habitat variables or body mass received weak support. A positive trend for effect of body mass on movement between successive locations was found but no evidence for an effect of predator abundance or habitat variables. These findings indicate that spatiotemporal variation in predator abundance was a key factor determining daily postfledging survival rate in this Ovenbird population; however, predator abundance did not influence movement rate, suggesting that fledgling Ovenbirds were unable to respond to predation risk.
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) | 0.000 | 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".