MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Effects of predator activity on the nesting of American Black Ducks and other birds on barrier islands in the mid-Atlantic coast

2006· dissertation· en· W2804021653 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brian Arquilla

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNest (protein structural motif)GoosePredationPredatorEcologyReproductive successGeographyPopulationNest boxFisheryBiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Landscape change throughout North America has resulted in heightened nest predator population and declining avian productivity. Essential to establishing effective management design is an understanding of differential predation pressure among avian groups as group specific responses to predation impact may exist. The objective of this study was to examine the efficacy of predator trapping on the nest success and density of ground nesting avifauna in 2004-2005 in the Virginia Coast Reserve, specifically dabbling ducks, Canada Goose and Willet. Second, we determine the impact of predation on ground nesting birds by relating indices of predator abundance to nest density and nest success for island plots. Overall Mayfield nest success for dabbling ducks was 54.4% (n = 12) in 2004 and 17.7% (n = 30) in 2005. Green Transformed nest success for dabbling ducks was 34.5% (n = 25) in 2004 and 23.0% (n = 42). For Canada goose, overall Mayfield nest success was 53.1 (n = 37) in 2004 and 47.7% (n = 39) in 2005. Overall Green Transformed nest success for Canada Goose was 59.5% (n = 57) in 2004 and 50.6% (n = 51) in 2005. Finally, overall Green Transformed nest success for Willet was 53.7% (n = 110) in 2004 and 46.0% (n = 118) in 2005. Nest success estimates on island plots varied greatly. There was no difference in nest success between trapped and non-trapped islands for dabbling ducks (P = 0.1990), Canada Goose (P = 0.4860), Willet (P = 0.4920) and artificial nest success (P = 0.4200). Likewise, there was no difference in nest density between trapped and non-trapped islands for dabbling ducks (P = 0.2408), Canada Goose (P = 0.2950), and Willet (P = 0.1381). Several factors may explain this result including a lack of trapping efficacy, design flaws, low intensity of trapping, and differences in island habitat affecting avian nest site selection and sample size. Nest success for both dabbling ducks (P = 0.0225) and Willets (P < 0.0001) was inversely related to predator activity, as measured by artificial nest success. In contrast, Canada Goose (P = 0.6686) showed no relationship between nest success and predator activity. For Canada Goose (P = 0.0064) and Willet (P = 0.0029), nest density decreased with increasing predator activity on island plots. Biased nest detection, philopatry to islands with reduced predation risk, and active selection for reduced predator environments may explain the higher nest density on islands with

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)0.001
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 score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAvian ecology and behavior→French-language works237,207→