Does prey availability affect the reproductive performance of Barn Swallows (<i>Hirundo rustica</i>) breeding in Ontario, Canada?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animal populations are often limited by food availability, particularly during the breeding season. In birds, food limitation can impact several components of the reproductive cycle, including the timing of reproduction and reproductive output. Barn Swallows (Hirundo rustica Linnaeus, 1758) have experienced a population decline over the past 40 years in North America that is thought to be related to changes in prey availability. We monitored Barn Swallow reproductive behaviour and prey availability throughout two breeding seasons at 10 sites in Ontario, Canada, to test the hypothesis that limited prey availability during the breeding season affected reproductive behaviour. We found no relationship between food availability and number of eggs laid or number of young fledged. Neither did we observe higher rates of second brooding or more pairs nesting at breeding sites with higher food availability. Barn Swallows did not time their reproductive effort to maximize prey availability during the nesting period, but any mismatch in phenology of prey and bird reproduction at a breeding site was not associated with lower reproductive success. The results of this study did not support our hypothesis and suggest that Barn Swallow reproductive behaviour was not negatively affected by limited prey availability on the breeding grounds.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".