MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413872559 · doi:10.1111/1365-2656.70128

Predator activity, proactive anti‐predator strategies and nesting phenology produce a dynamic landscape of risk to tundra goose reproduction

2025· article· en· W4413872559 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sean Johnson‐Bice, Chloé Warret Rodrigues, Holly Gamblin, Frank B. Baldwin, James D. Roth

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Ecology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNatural Resources CanadaChurchill Northern Studies CentreUniversity of ManitobaNational Geographic Society
KeywordsVulpesNest (protein structural motif)PredationEcologyPredatorWaterfowlLagopusBiologyGooseReproductive successHabitatTundraBrantaGeographyArcticPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Birds generally rely on proactive anti-predator strategies when selecting nest sites, as they have limited options to adapt to changing levels of risk once incubation begins. Arctic waterfowl often nest colonially as an anti-predator strategy, but dispersed-breeding species may use other proactive strategies, such as nesting in areas perceived to be safer. However, empirical links between spatial patterns of predation risk and nest habitat selection or success are needed to better understand how predator activity shapes Arctic waterfowl reproduction. Using activity data from the main cursorial nest predators, Arctic and red foxes (Vulpes lagopus, Vulpes vulpes), and aerial predators, we evaluate the influence predator activity has on Canada goose (Branta canadensis interior) nest habitat selection and success, and how nesting phenology mediates these effects. We compared habitat selection models fit to (i) goose nest locations and (ii) fox locations obtained from GPS collars and found that geese and foxes displayed nearly opposite patterns of selection for the same landscape traits. Geese selected sites that minimized their probability of encountering foxes while also maximizing their ability to detect foxes. Spatial predictions of fox activity revealed nests located in areas with higher probability of fox use had lower nest success, indicating fox space-use patterns reflect predation risk. Landscape heterogeneity influenced both fox and goose nest habitat selection patterns and, consequently, spatial variation in predation risk and reproductive success. Aerial predators appeared to have a lesser effect on spatial patterns of goose nest habitat selection and success. Spatial patterns of nest success were, however, strongly influenced by nesting phenology. Nests initiated earlier had a greater probability of successfully hatching, but these patterns depended on location; the benefits of nesting early decreased in areas of high fox activity. Our study demonstrates the mechanisms by which nesting phenology, predator activity and landscape heterogeneity interact to shape bird reproduction and provides an empirical demonstration of how our understanding of predation risk is enhanced by integrating both spatial and temporal dynamics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.241 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal EcologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207