Effects of urbanization and nest-box design on reproduction vary by species in three cavity-nesting passerines in the Okanagan Valley, British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial nest boxes provide an important resource for secondary cavity-nesting passerines, whose populations may be limited by the availability of nesting sites. However, previous studies have demonstrated that the design and placement of boxes may affect the reproductive success of the birds that use them. In this study, we asked whether the habitat surrounding a nest box or the type of box influenced reproduction in three cavity-nesting passerines. We studied Western Bluebirds (Sialia mexicana Swainson, 1832), Mountain Bluebirds (Sialia currucoides (Bechstein, 1798)), and Tree Swallows (Tachycineta bicolor (Vieillot, 1808)) breeding in artificial nest boxes at sites across 70 km of the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia, Canada. Sites varied in their degree of urbanization, from relatively undisturbed ranchland, to cultivated vineyards, to frequently disturbed “suburban” habitat, and boxes varied in type of entrance (slot or hole). Western Bluebirds nested earlier in vineyards, and Tree Swallows produced significantly fewer fledglings in suburban habitat. In addition, Tree Swallows nested earlier and produced more fledglings in slot boxes. Our results suggest that conservation actions for cavity-nesting passerines may depend on the target species, which in turn should dictate the appropriate box type and habitat when erecting or replacing nest boxes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".