MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392281740 · doi:10.1139/er-2023-0101

Spatial ecotoxicology: what we know about the relationship between avian movements and contaminant levels

2024· article· en· W4392281740 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Julia E. Baak, Jennifer F. Provencher, Mark L. Mallory, Kyle H. Elliott

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Reviews · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicToxic Organic Pollutants Impact
Canadian institutionsAcadia UniversityMcGill UniversityCarleton UniversityEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcotoxicologyEcologyEnvironmental scienceGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Birds are widely used as indicators of environmental contamination because they integrate signals across space and time. However, this advantage also means that locating the source of pollution can be challenging, especially for species that migrate large distances. Historically, the assignment of contaminant burden to particular life stages or locations has been made by sampling tissues with varying time signals and associating those signals with locations assigned from band recoveries or stable isotope analyses. Unfortunately, these assignments are geographically coarse. More recently, tracking devices have been increasingly used to determine more precisely where and when contamination is likely to occur. Here, we review current knowledge on using tracking devices to examine the relationship between avian movements and contaminant loads. We found 42 published articles with samples collected from 1986 to 2021 that used tracking devices to examine the relationship between avian movement and contaminant loads, where studies were primarily concentrated in the northern hemisphere, notably in the North Atlantic. Tracking methodology varied widely across studies to date, but the use of radiotransmitters and satellite tags generally decreased as newer technologies, such as global positioning systems and geolocation sensors, were developed. Blood and feathers were the most commonly used tissues to assess contaminant concentrations, but sample sizes were often low (<40, the recommended sample size for some tracking or contaminant studies), and one-quarter of studies did not statistically test the relationship between tracking data and contaminant concentrations. Moving forward, studies should (1) consider statistical power; (2) consider tissue turnover rates, contaminant turnover rates, and tracking device resolution; (3) examine tissues that inform different time scales; 4) explore the impacts of contaminants on behaviour and movement; and 5) increase collaboration, standardization, and information sharing across existing tracking or contaminant monitoring programs. Focusing on these aspects will enhance our ability to identify the source, transport, and fate of contaminants in avian species across the globe.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ReviewsSame topicToxic Organic Pollutants ImpactFrench-language works237,207