MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2294502231 · doi:10.14288/1.0087458

Nesting and roosting habitat and breeding biology of the barn owl (Tyto alba) in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia

2009· article· en· W2294502231 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lorraine A. Andrusiak

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTytoBarn-owlNesting (process)HabitatGeographyMainlandEcologyZoologyBarnBiologyFisheryArchaeologyPredationEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nesting and roosting habitat use and breeding biology of the barn owl (Tyto alba pratincola) in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia were studied over 3 years from 1990-92. A total of 236 sites used by barn owls were located, all but 9 of which were man-made. The majority of the sites (72%) were barns, then silos (11 %) and industrial buildings (4%). Natural nest sites were located in both live trees and snags. It is suggested that barn owls choose man-made sites over natural sites because of the increased thermal cover and increased security from predators. Yearly variations in brood size and the mean number of young fledged per nest were observed, with the lowest values for both recorded in 1991. Poor environmental conditions are thought to be responsible for lowered breeding success in this case. The 3 year mean clutch size, brood size and number of young fledged per nest and their standard deviations were 6.5 (+ 3.5), 3.3 (± 2.0) and 2.6 (±2.1), respectively. Taxidermy data provided information on mortality of adult barn owls. Road kills were found to account for the largest proportion (62.9%) of the carcasses, with starvation (16.7%) and unknown causes (14.6%) making up most of the remainder. Mortality in general was lowest in the summer and highest in the winter. Examination of banding records revealed an average age of 28.1 months at death, with most birds being recovered less than 20 km from their place of banding. Contrary to published hypotheses, no evidence of southward migration could be found. Six adult barn owls were radio-tracked and each was found to have a favoured roost site at which it could be located most of the time. The barn owls roosted at both manmade and natural sites, the choice of which seemed to depend on the preferences of the individual. Several barn owl nestbox programs have been initiated in the Lower Mainland and preliminary results from 2 of the programs show occupancy of the boxes at 31-57% about 2 years after the installation of the boxes. Examination of the history of agriculture in the Lower Mainland reveals that acreage of prime barn owl hunting habitat such as pasture and unimproved pasture are declining. The future of the barn owl in the Lower Mainland depends upon the efficacy of farmland conservation programs such as the Agricultural Land Reserve in preserving farmland from urban development.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.160
Teacher spread0.155 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207