Evaluating captive-release strategies for the Western Burrowing Owl ( Athene cunicularia hypugaea )
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantitatively evaluating and monitoring augmentation efforts are critical for conservation success. We formally evaluated the success of two Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) population augmentation programs in Manitoba and British Columbia by assessing survival of breeding adults, fledging success, and return rates of fledglings. Manitoba’s head-starting program holds hatching year (HY) owls taken from the nests of previous captive-released pairs over winter. After being overwintered in human care, the HY owls are released in pairs as second year (SY) owls. British Columbia has a breeding and release program where owls are bred in facilities; their offspring are then held over winter, paired and soft-released in the spring. Both programs soft-release SY pairs that lay clutches in situ and young are referred to as “wild-hatched owls.” We investigated both individual owl and release site characteristics in relation to our success metrics. In Manitoba, breeding season survival averaged 81%, but no factors investigated had a significant effect on survival. In British Columbia, wild-hatched owls returned more than captive released owls (p < 0.001). Determining the causes behind captive-released owls’ reduced rate of return should be a priority for both recovery programs. Fewer owls returned to release sites with more surrounding cropland. Releases should be prioritized at sites with low percentages of cropland. Interestingly, individuals who returned from migration to form pairs and breed had significantly higher reproductive success than captive-released pairs, suggesting effects of survivor-bias or mate choice. By analyzing post-monitoring data, we have identified opportunities for conservation managers to implement modifications to future release protocols.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 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".