Reproductive success and health of breeding Bank Swallows (Riparia riparia) in aggregate (sand and gravel) pit and natural lakeshore habitats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Bank Swallows (Riparia riparia) are designated as Threatened in Canada, in part due to loss of natural breeding habitat along lakeshores and rivers. Excavation in sand and gravel pits (aka aggregate pits) has increased availability of potential nesting habitat away from lakes and rivers, and these substitute habitats may be important to stabilize the decline experienced by some Bank Swallow populations. Over 2 yr, we collected data on Bank Swallow reproductive success from 2 natural lakeshore habitat sites along bluffs of the north shore of Lake Ontario and 7 aggregate pits in southern Ontario, within 100 km of the lakeshore. Nests at the lakeshore habitat were initiated earlier than in aggregate pits, 8 days earlier in 2014 and 13 days earlier in 2015. Neither clutch size nor number of nestlings were different between the 2 habitat types. There were differences in the number of fledglings produced between the habitat types, with Bank Swallows nesting in aggregate pits raising more fledglings per successful nest. However, birds nesting in aggregate pits also had significantly more nests that raised no fledglings, even though eggs in those nests hatched. Breeding adults from aggregate pits were initially heavier than those from the lakeshore habitat, but their mass decreased significantly over the nesting season. Fledgling masses were not significantly different between habitat types. Parasite loads on fledgling Bank Swallows from aggregate pits were significantly lower than on fledglings from the lakeshore. These indicators suggest that aggregate pits can provide at least equivalent habitat for Bank Swallows to that provided by natural lakeshore habitat, making them potentially key for the recovery of this species in Ontario.
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 | 0.000 | 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".