MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909953223 · doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13336

Hyperabundant herbivores limit habitat availability and influence nest site selection of Arctic‐breeding birds

2019· article· en· W2909953223 on OpenAlexafffund
Scott A. Flemming, Erica Nol, Lisa V. Kennedy, Paul A. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Ecology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaTrent University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaW. Garfield Weston Foundation
KeywordsGooseHabitatForagingNest (protein structural motif)EcologyAnatidaeTundraBiologyWaterfowlGeographyArctic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Understanding an organism's habitat selection and behavioural flexibility in the face of environmental change can help managers plan for future conservation of that species. Hyperabundant tundra‐nesting geese are influencing Arctic environments through their foraging activities. Goose‐induced habitat change in Arctic wetlands may influence the availability of habitat for numerous shorebird species that breed sympatrically with geese. We explore whether goose‐induced habitat alteration affects shorebird breeding density and nest site selection. Using habitat data collected at sites with High, Moderate and Low goose influence, and samples collected during two periods separated by 11 years, we document the habitat characteristics influenced by geese. We describe the habitat characteristics preferred by shorebirds and relate their availability to goose influence and shorebird density. Finally, we examine whether shorebird nest site selection has changed over time and whether shorebirds select nest sites differently in habitat influenced by geese. We document spatial and temporal changes in sedge meadow habitat and lateral concealment relating to goose influence. The availability of sedge meadow habitat and the degree of lateral concealment declined with increasing goose influence, and also declined at two sites over the 11 years of the study. Densities of both cover‐ and open‐nesting shorebirds were highest where goose influence was lowest. At sites with Low goose influence, cover‐nesting shorebirds selected nest sites with more sedge meadow and concealment than at sites with Moderate and High goose influence, presumably because these high‐quality sites were more available. Synthesis and applications . Intensive foraging by a colony of hyperabundant geese is limiting the availability of preferred nesting habitat and densities of sympatric‐nesting shorebirds. Where goose‐induced habitat alteration is pronounced shorebird species that select concealed nest sites are nesting in areas with lower concealment and less sedge meadow. Studies examining the degree to which these effects scale up to impact the population sizes of declining shorebirds should be considered a future research priority. Moreover, management strategies for geese should incorporate the habitat needs of sympatric species and reinvigorate efforts for goose population reduction in order to achieve the population targets articulated by management agencies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations23
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied EcologySame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207