Effects of Nest Habitat, Food, and Parental Behavior on Shorebird Nest Success
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Abstract In environments such as arctic tundra, where bird densities are low and habitats are comparatively homogeneous, suitable nest sites likely are not limited. Under these conditions, reproductive success of birds may be determined by factors other than the habitat characteristics of nest sites. We studied the relative influence of nest habitat, food, nest distribution, and parental behavior on the reproductive success of tundra-breeding shorebirds at East Bay, Southampton Island, Nunavut, Canada. From 2000 to 2002, we monitored the nests of five species: Black-bellied Plover (Pluvialis squatarola), Semipalmated Plover (Charadrius semipalmatus), Ruddy Turnstone (Arenaria interpres), White-rumped Sandpiper (Calidris fuscicollis), and Red Phalarope (Phalaropus fulicarius). For each species, habitat differed between nest sites and random sites. In contrast, habitat differed between successful and failed nest sites only for White-rumped Sandpipers. Shorebirds did not prefer to nest in habitats where food was most abundant. Although nest success varied among species in all years, artificial nest experiments suggested that interspecific variation in predation rate was not related to habitat type. Instead, the marked interspecific variation in nest success may have been related to incubation behavior. Species taking fewer incubation recesses had higher nest success, although these results should be viewed as preliminary. The factor with the greatest interannual influence on nest success was fluctuating predation pressure, apparently related to the abundance of predators and lemmings.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".