Evaluation of a Vacuum Technique to Estimate Abundance of Waste Barley
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Reliable estimates of seasonal waste-grain abundance are needed for wildlife conservation and management because these resources influence carrying capacity, behavior, and movement of birds. We tested efficacy and precision of a vacuum-sampling device for collecting waste barley Hordeum vulgare at Manitoulin Island, Ontario, Canada, 2011 and 2012. We used a Stihl BG 65E blower-vac to sample barley following methodology developed to sample moist-soil seeds. We collected samples by vacuum sampling (n = 51) and hand-picking (n = 51) in three randomly selected cut barley fields to estimate the proportion collected by vacuum sampling. We also collected experimental samples (n = 72) to estimate percent recovery using predetermined densities of dyed barley. Because our results were more variable and our percent recovery was less than published values, we acquired the blower-vac unit (BG 85) used in the moist-soil seed study to test for an equipment effect by repeating our experiments in 2012. We tested for equipment effects on percent recovery using generalized linear mixed-effect models with our observational and experimental data sets while controlling for spatial autocorrelation. Our analysis suggested that equipment type did not account for differences in percent recovery. Hand-picking yielded more precise estimates of waste barley density (x¯ = 97.1%, SD = 7.67%, n = 60) as compared with the blower-vacs under natural conditions (BG 65E: x¯ = 19.2%, SD = 96.0%, n = 27; BG 85: x¯ = 27.0%, SD = 40.37%, n = 24). Although the technique was not effective here for waste barley, we suggest that further research into small cereal grain applications is warranted.
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 | 0.004 | 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".