Environmental determinants Of reproductive success in cavity nesting songbirds of a semi-arid grassland in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I investigated the influence of regional climate, local weather, and nest box features on the reproductive success of mountain bluebirds (Sialia currucoides)\nand tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor). I also evaluated the relative influence of local weather and parental care behaviour on mountain bluebird nestling growth\nand mortality. My results demonstrate that local weather can strongly influence the breeding performance of mountain bluebirds, with improved reproductive\nsuccess during years of less rainfall. I conclude that this influence is likely exerted directly through acute nestling mortality rather than through nestling growth and prolonged nestling stress. As well, I show that regional climate plays an important role in tree swallow reproductive success, with improved tree swallow breeding performance during years of lower Southern Oscillation Index values (El Niño conditions). I suggest that the affect of regional climate on tree swallow reproductive success is likely due to influences that ENSO and regional climatic patterns may have on the aerial insect prey base of tree swallows in our study region near Kamloops, BC. For mountain bluebirds, I found the influence of weather on reproductive success is dependent on nest box features, including nest box entrance type. This study has implications for conservationists and managers of grassland passerines in British Columbia and beyond, especially in light of global climate change.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".