Overhead Gridline Systems to Exclude Waterfowl From Large Bodies of Water
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presence of birds at retention/detention basins on or adjacent to an airport increases the probability of experiencing a wildlife strike. Overhead gridline systems have proven effective for reducing the presence of birds on small water bodies. While there are several line materials available to address bird hazards associated with small basins, the list of options decreases quickly as the distance to be spanned increases. The Michigan Wildlife Services program (WS) tested 4 types of line material on 3 large detention basins to determine which materials could span up to 675 m (2214.5 ft) without center supports. Additionally, the line material could not sag substantially because of water fluctuations of up to 1.5 m (5 ft). If a line would contact the surface of the water, the surface tension would hold it in place reducing the effectiveness and causing potential damage to the grid, especially during freezing and thawing periods. We found that a braided fishing line made of Spectra® fiber called PowerPro proved superior in our tests. We suspended grid lines in perpendicular directions on 30 m (100ft) spacing. Preliminary results show a notable reduction in usage by Canada geese (Branta canadensis), mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), mute swans (Cygnus olor), herring gulls (Larusargentatus) and ring-billed gulls (Larus delawarensis).
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".