Avian Use of Dairy Farm Ponds and Landowners’ Perceptions of Their Management for Wildlife Conservation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Farm ponds are among the last remaining lentic wetland habitats in human-dominated agricultural and suburban landscapes. However, their wildlife value and farmers’ willingness to maintain them for the conservation of regionally declining biodiversity are often both poorly documented. The objectives of this study of 61 dairy farm ponds located in Southern Quebec (Canada) were to (1) describe their biophysical features and birds’ use, (2) determine habitat and landscape characteristics that influence the bird community, and (3) assess the willingness of farmers to support wildlife use. The studied ponds were small (0.17 ha) and had rectangular shape with rocky/muddy steeply slopes (21°), surrounded by 3 m wide riparian strips and pastures, hayfields, and fallows. They were located about 300 m from farmhouses, buildings, streams, and adjacent ponds. A total of 1963 individuals belonging to 46 bird species were observed. The abundance of all bird species, of species with declining populations, and of crop damaging species were positively related to the area of fallow land and to the width of riparian strips; the areas of cereals and of mixed-wood forest had a negative influence. Only two habitat variables had influence on species richness: the width of riparian strips (+) and the distance to the closest farm buildings (–). Most pond landowners (>80%) were in favour of increasing wildlife use if they were given access to associated financial support and logistical assistance. Wider riparian strips and adjacent uncultivated field margins are recommended.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".