Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humans exert dramatic influences upon the environment, creating novel selective pressures to which organisms must adapt. On the Galapagos, humans have established a permanent presence and have altered selective pressures through influences such as invasive predators and urbanization, affecting iconic species such as Darwin's finches. Here, I ask two key questions: (a) Does antipredator behaviour (e.g., flight initiation distance - FID) change depending on whether invasive predators are historically absent, present, or eradicated? and (b) To what degree does urbanization affect antipredator behaviour? This study is one of the first to quantify antipredator behaviour in endemic species after the eradication of invasive predators. This will help to understand the consequences of invasive predator eradication and inform conservation measures. I quantified FID, an antipredator behaviour, in the small ground finch, across multiple islands in the Galapagos that varied in the presence, absence, or successful eradication of invasive predators. On islands with human populations, I quantified FID in urban and non-urban populations of finches. FID was higher on islands with invasive predators compared to islands with no predators. On islands from which invasive predators were eradicated ~11 years previously, FID was also higher than on islands with no invasive predators. Within islands that had both urban and non-urban populations of finches, FID was lower in urban finch populations, but only above a threshold human population size. FID in larger urban areas on islands with invasive predators was similar to or lower than FID on islands with no history of invasive predators. Overall, these results suggest that invasive predators can have a lasting effect on antipredator behaviour, even after eradication. Furthermore, the effect of urbanization can strongly oppose the effect of invasive predators, reducing antipredator behaviour to levels lower than found on pristine islands with no human influences. These results improve our understanding of human influences on antipredator behaviour which can help inform future conservation and management efforts on islands.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".