<i>Hirundo rustica</i> (Barn Swallows) and <i>Tachycineta bicolor</i> (Tree Swallows) select wetlands in agriculturally intensive landscapes, as revealed by GPS tracking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aerial insectivorous birds breeding in North America have experienced decades of population declines for reasons hypothesized to be related to changes in their insect prey. In agricultural landscapes, land management practices can affect insect communities, leading to concerns that ongoing trends toward more intensive cultivation could affect the ability of farmland-breeding aerial insectivores to forage and provision their offspring with aerial insect prey. To understand how differences in agricultural intensity may affect the foraging behavior of different aerial insectivore species, we used GPS tags to compare the movements and habitat use of 2 species with different foraging ecologies, Hirundo rustica (Barn Swallow) and Tachycineta bicolor (Tree Swallow), breeding at 17 sites in agricultural landscapes in Saskatchewan, Canada. Although we identified differences in foraging behavior consistent with each species’ reported ecological traits, including T. bicolor foraging farther and over larger areas than H. rustica, overall foraging behavior was similar between species. Resource selection function analyses indicated that both species used wetlands disproportionately often relative to local wetland availability, especially when detected farther from their nests. Hirundo rustica and T. bicolor both also avoided cropped foraging habitat, using it proportionally less than it was locally available. In landscapes with greater wetland cover, both species selected for wetland habitat more strongly, and among T. bicolor, higher wetland density decreased maximum foraging distance and home range area. In contrast, we found no effect of crop cover on foraging habitat selection or foraging movements. These findings suggest that H. rustica and T. bicolor breeding in Saskatchewan agroecosystems share similar foraging strategies, with wetland habitats appearing to be highly important despite comprising only a small proportion of landscape area. Overall, these results indicate that protecting wetland habitats should be a priority for aerial insectivore conservation in the intensive agricultural landscapes such as the Canadian prairies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".