Data from: Nest boxes increase reproductive output for Tree Swallows in a forest grassland matrix in central British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Secondary cavity-nesting birds depend on tree cavities for nesting and roosting, but many studies of these birds are conducted using nest boxes. Implementation of effective conservation strategies for cavity-nesting species such as nest-site supplementation requires careful comparisons of fecundity and other vital rates for birds using both natural and artificial nest site types. We compared breeding phenology, clutch and brood sizes, and fledging success of Tree Swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) nesting in tree cavities and nest boxes during 2001–2003 in British Columbia, Canada. Swallows using nest boxes initiated egg-laying and hatched young at approximately the same time as those in tree cavities (2 June, 23 June, respectively). Female Tree Swallows in boxes laid larger clutches (5.9 ± 0.9 eggs, N = 76) than those in tree cavities (4.2 ± 1.6 eggs, N = 67). The mean number of nestlings hatched was greater in nest boxes (5.2 ± 1.1 nestlings, N = 67) than in tree cavities (2.6 ± 2.0 nestlings, N = 58). Pairs in boxes were over twice as successful in producing fledglings (93.4%; 57 of 61 pairs fledged > 1 young) than those in tree cavities (35.8%; 19 of 53 pairs). Of those successful nests, pairs nesting in boxes fledged 5.1 ± 1.1 young (N = 57), whereas those in tree cavities fledged 3.5 ± 1.2 young (N = 18). Because cavities in nest boxes averaged 60% larger in volume and 1.8 cm wider internally than tree cavities, we suggest that increased reproductive output was correlated with boxes enabling a larger clutch size. In previous research, we found that Tree Swallows were a poor competitor with other cavity-nesting passerines for tree cavities. The addition of nest boxes may serve as an effective way to supplement local reproduction for secondary cavity-nesting bird populations by reducing competition for limited nest sites. This is especially true in regions where the availability of natural nesting sites is highly variable, and where species compete with many other cavity-nesting passerines using a similar ecological niche and nesting cavities.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".