Nesting Behaviour and Reproductive Success of Sprague’s Pipit (<i>Anthus spragueii</i>) and Vesper Sparrow (<i>Pooecetes gramineus</i>) during Pipeline Construction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Industrial activity occurs in the breeding habitat of several species at risk, including the federally threatened Sprague’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii). To evaluate whether oil pipeline construction reduces the productivity of this species, we examined (a) noise levels in relation to distance from the pipeline right-of-way (ROW), (b) the extent to which noise and song frequencies overlapped, (c) the distribution of Sprague’s Pipit nests relative to the ROW, and (d) Sprague’s Pipit reproductive success during exposure to pipeline construction and clean-up activity. We also examined the songs, nest locations, and reproductive success of the Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus) for comparison. Study plots (400 × 400 m, n = 30) were established in grassland adjacent to the pipeline ROW or 600 m away from the ROW in similar habitat. Mean maximum noise levels during pipeline activity included frequencies that overlapped the song range of both species and were louder than the recommended 49 dB threshold up to 250 m from the ROW. Sprague’s Pipit nests were evenly distributed across close and distant plots, whereas Vesper Sparrow nests were more abundant within 50 m of the ROW. Sprague’s Pipit daily nest survival rate and the number of young surviving to day 8 both increased with increasing distance from the ROW; and Vesper Sparrow daily nest survival decreased slightly with exposure to pipeline activities. Our findings validate the restricted activity period and indicate that the recommended setback distance of 350 m is a reasonable guideline for pipeline projects.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".