Raptors benefit from biosolids applications on rangelands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globally, many grasslands have been lost or degraded via settlement, conversion to agriculture, or use as pasture. These losses have damaged the ability of migratory and nomadic birds of prey to find suitable breeding territories. Habitat restoration of degraded grasslands via the application of biosolids, the treated and sterilized remains from sewage treatment plants, improves soil water retention and nutrient profile, leading to substantial gains in plant growth and nutritive quality. Gains to wild and domestic herbivores have been documented, but impacts to predators are poorly known. Here, we test the hypothesis that biosolids-applied pastures are attractive to and support migratory and nomadic avian predators in central British Columbia, Canada. We obtained habitat records from sightings and prey remains from pellets for three vole-specialists, Long-eared Owls (Asio otus), Short-eared Owls (A. flammeus), and Northern Harriers (Circus hudsonius), as well as the generalist American Kestrels (Falco sparverius). During 5 years, the three diurnal species preferentially used biosolids-applied pastures, and kestrels and owls nested in biosolids-applied pastures or in forest patches adjacent to these pastures. Grasshoppers were more abundant on pastures with biosolids and were common prey for American Kestrels. The owls and harriers preferentially consumed voles, although Short-eared Owls consumed deermice (Peromyscus maniculatus) as a major additional food source during years when voles were scarce. Long-eared Owls were documented only in the 2 years when voles were common. Collectively, these results suggest that biosolids-amended landscapes may attract raptors, even when vole densities are low.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".