Conspecific attraction and area sensitivity of grassland songbirds in northern tall-grass prairie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many grassland songbird species exhibit sensitivity to patch size in North America’s fragmented prairie ecosystems, but the mechanisms explaining this area sensitivity are not well understood. I tested the effects of patch size and artificial conspecific location cues (song playback and decoys) on grassland songbird abundance in 23 northern tall-grass prairies in Manitoba, Canada, in 2010 and 2011. Richness and relative abundances increased with patch area; this effect was not explained by differences in local habitat structure, patch configuration, and adjacent matrix. Artificial cues elicited putative territory prospecting in small, previously unoccupied treatment patches from two focal species, Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis; n=3 treatment sites) and Le Conte’s Sparrow (Ammodramus leconteii; n=4 treatment sites), but not in control patches (n=3 for both focal species). Social information may influence the focal species’ settlement decisions, but the lack of permanent settlement response suggests social cues are unable to reverse their area sensitivity.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".