Surveys of Endangered Songbirds Hampered by Reduction of Singing Upon Nesting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent evidence has shown that male songbirds reduce the amount they sing once they become reproductive. They are instead attending to nest building, incubating, and feeding fledglings. Surveys that rely on singing males usually underestimate bird numbers and are generally inaccurate reflections of habitat preference. This has ramifications for surveys of endangered songbirds because these surveys usually rely on observations made by sound as well as by sight. To get a more accurate portrayal of songbird reproductive output under different land uses within priority shrub-steppe habitats of the south Okanagan, British Columbia, direct measures of reproductive success were recorded at eight 40 ha plots (and two smaller plots) during summer 2003. Point count surveys were also performed to assess their ability to estimate productivity at a site. One hundred and fifty-two nests of a variety of provincially red-listed grassland/shrub-steppe and other species were found. This included the discovery of a sage thrasher ((Oreoscoptes montanus) federally Endangered in Canada) nest without prior detection of the adults. It is likely that the male was not singing since the site was visited every two days by experienced birders who were looking for nests. Data on song rate in relation to reproductive status is difficult to collect, but we were able to collect some preliminary data for the vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus), a declining grassland songbird species, that showed that song rate declined upon nesting. Difficulties in nest finding, especially with silent males, may result in many nests being undiscovered. Using a combination of nest searches with behavioral observations to define territories is the best approach for maximizing knowledge of the productivity of endangered songbirds at a site.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".