Grassland songbird use of waterfowl nesting cover in southwestern Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I compared the abundance and reproductive success of grassland songbirds in managed waterfowl nesting cover (native and introduced dense nesting cover [DNC]) and unmanaged (hay, crop) habitats, and associated these differences with vegetative characteristics.My study was conducted from May-July of 1994-1996 in the rural municipalities of Odanah and Minto, southwestern Manitoba.Study plots were 400 x 200 m (8 ha) in size and grid-marked with colored flags at 50-m intervals to facilitate spot mapping of bird detections.In order to assess reproductive success, I derived a behavioral index of productivity (BIP) for each recognized songbird territory and I monitored grassland songbirds nests in each study plot.I also measured vegetation characteristics within each study plot.Total bird abundance did not differ among native DNC, introduced DNC, and hay fields; However, crop fields had less than 25% as many birds as the other 3 habitats (F 3, 65 = 2 7 .2 , P = 0 .0 0 1 ) .H o r n e d l a r k s (Eremophila alpestris) were significantly more abundant in crop fields, but all other birds except sharp-tailed sparrows (Ammodramus caudacutus), eastern kingbirds (Tyrannus tyrannus), and western meadowlarks (Sturnella neglecta) were significantly more abundant in hay, native DNC, or introduced DNC.Native DNC, introduced DNC, and hay were extremely similar, with only a few exceptions.Mayfield nest success for all species combined ranged from 18-26% among habitat types (extremes represented by crop and native DNC, respectively), but this small amount of variation was not significant.These values are low compared to other estimates for grassland songbirds.iii Structural diversity, residual cover, and vegetation height were impo rtant vegetation characteristics for predicting abundance of grassland songbirds.Incorporating additional native grass, forb, and shrub species into seed mixtures would add more structural diversity to DNC for a variety of species.Although DNC was attractive to grassland songbirds, BIP and nest success estimates were low in this habitat, raising the possibility that DNC may function as an ecological trap for grassland songbirds.Additional research should focus on monitoring reproductive success of grassland songbirds, including a critical evaluation of the BIP method.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".