Exposure of the eastern screech-owl to selected contaminants in apple orchards of southern Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the exposure of the Eastern Screech-owl (Otus asio) to contaminants in apple orchards of southern Quebec. Using a worstcase scenario approach, secondary exposure to three organophosphorus insecticides, (phosmet, azinphosmethyl and phosalone), two anticoagulant rodenticides, (chlorophacinone and diphacinone), and residues of previously applied organochlorines, particularly DDT and metabolites, was assessed. Exposure to PCBs and trace metals was also considered. Small mammal species preyed upon by Screech-owls were captured in orchards for residue analysis on a continual basis for persistent compounds or after insecticide and rodenticide applications. Beginning in the winter of 2000, 98 nest boxes were constructed and installed in woods inhabited by Screech-owls, adjacent to orchards. These boxes were then repeatedly inspected for pellets and prey remains. Estimated exposure of Screech-owls 0-60 hr post-application was 0.641 mg/kg for phosmet and azinphosmethyl and 0.401 mg/kg for phosalone. Exposure to phosmet at this level may warrant concern. The acute poison zinc phosphide is now the primary means of small mammal control in the study area and the possibility of exposure to anticoagulant rodenticides is diminishing. Observed DDE residues were most elevated in the short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda) and ranged from <1.00 to 26.29 ug/g (wet wt) in whole-body pools. A Screech-owl egg found in a nest box between two orchards may have been thinned by as much as 19.8%, of concern because thinning maintained at 15.0 - 20.0% has been linked to population decline. Only background levels of PCBs and trace metals were detected. Finally, over 950 Screech-owl case files were also obtained from one Canadian and seven United States wildlife rehabilitation facilities and analyzed for evidence that pesticide exposure was an underlying or contributing cause of admissions.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".