Sprague's pipit breeding biology and reproductive success in planted and native grasslands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much of the native grasslands in agricultural regions have been converted to cropland or tilled and seeded with non‐native grasses for livestock production. Several grassland songbird species occupy planted grasslands, but occupancy or density may not be a reliable indicator of habitat quality. I studied the breeding biology of Sprague's pipit Anthus spragueii from 2004 to 2008 in Saskatchewan, Canada. My objective was to determine the extent to which the breeding biology, density and reproductive success of pipits varied in planted and native grasslands. Peak clutch initiation occurred in mid‐ to late‐May in planted and native grassland. Peak pipit density also occurred in May, but density drastically declined over the breeding season in planted grassland. Clutch size varied among years and declined over the breeding season, but was similar in planted (4.7 0.1 SE) and native grasslands (4.5 0.1 SE). Daily nest survival rates varied with age of the nest and date, but the relationships differed in the two habitats and was likely a result of lower nestling survival in planted grassland compared to native grassland. The number of young fledged per nest increased as the season progressed and tended to be greater in native (1.2 0.1 SE) than planted (0.9 0.2 SE) grasslands. Seasonal productivity was much greater in native grassland. Only three nests were initiated after May in planted grassland and all were unsuccessful, whereas pipit young fledged at higher rates from nests initiated in native grassland in June and July than planted grassland nests initiated in May. The number of fledged young from successful nests did not vary strongly with habitat, date or year. This research indicates that planted grasslands attract pipits at the beginning of the breeding season, but habitat suitability and reproductive success substantially declines as the breeding season progresses compared to that found in native grassland.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".