Nestboxes augment seabird breeding performance in a high‐density colony: Insight from 15 years of monitoring data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The provision of artificial nest structures is used in the conservation of a broad range of bird groups including raptors, owls, ducks, passerines and seabirds, with varying degrees of success. Artificial nestboxes have been provided to increase the density and breeding success of Roseate Tern pairs at colonies in north‐west Europe and the eastern seaboard of the USA and Canada, but their effect on breeding productivity has never been comprehensively quantified. Using 15 years of monitoring data, based on daily nest monitoring visits, we carried out a comparative analysis of the breeding performance of Roseate Tern pairs utilizing artificial nestboxes with those in open nests, on Rockabill Island (Ireland), to evaluate the effectiveness of nestbox installation as a conservation measure. Nestboxes were used ahead of open sites early in the season, likely by the experienced breeding pairs. Hatching success and fledging success were higher for pairs in nestboxes compared with those in open nest sites. Earlier clutches were more successful than later ones, independent of the effects of nest site type. The results of this study show definitively that Roseate Terns nesting in nestboxes perform better than those using open nest sites at their largest European colony and that nestboxes are chosen ahead of other sites, likely by the experienced breeding pairs. We recommend the continued and expanded use of nestboxes to help maximize the densities and breeding performance of the Roseate Tern.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".