The influence of investigator disturbance on aggressive behaviour and breeding success of ring-billed gulls (Larus delawarensis) /

Increased losses of eggs and chicks resulting from human intrusion (investigator or other) into seabird colonies has been well documented. In 1990/91, I studied the effects of investigator disturbance on aggressive behaviour and breeding success of individual pairs of ring-billed gulls nesting at two colonies near Port Colborne, Ontario. The insular colony was on an artificial breakwall, associated with the Welland Ship Canal, approximately 1 km off the north shore of Lake Erie. The mainland colony was adjacent to the canal approximately 1 km east of the breakwall. The frequencies of adult threat and assault behaviours, chick movement and adult attacks on chicks were recorded by continuous scan sampling 30 min prior to, 30 min during and 60 (2 X 30) min after investigator disturbance. The frequency of threat and assault behaviours increased during the period of investigator activity in the colony while the duration of wingpulls and beakpulls decreased. Significantly more chicks ran ("runners") from their natal territories during disturbances and "runners" were more frequently attacked than "territorial" chicks. No chicks were fatally attacked during disturbance and "runners" returned to their natal territories quickly after disturbance. Breeding success was determined for pairs nesting in study plots subjected to two levels of disturbance (normal and moderate). The disturbance level of each plot differed in visitation frequency and activities performed on each visit. Investigator disturbance had no effect on the hatching success or fledging success (taken as 21 days of age) of ring-billed gull study pairs at either colony.

The form and function of aggressive subtypes: Relations with the goodness of fit between adolescent temperament and parent personality

The current research investigated whether the interaction between adolescent temperament and parent personality, consistent with the goodness of fit perspective, differentially predicted overt (e.g., kicking, punching, insulting) and relational (e.g., gossiping, rumour spreading, ostracising) forms of reactive (e.g., provoked, a response to goal blocking, unplanned and emotional) and proactive (e.g., unprovoked, goal-directed, deliberate and relatively unemotional) aggression. Mothers, fathers and their adolescent child (N = 448, age 10-17) from southern Ontario, Canada filled out questionnaires on adolescent temperament (i.e., frustration, fear, and effortful control) and aggression. Parents reported on their own personality traits (i.e., agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability). The form and function of aggression not encompassed by the subtype under investigation were controlled in each regression analysis. Consistent with the hypothesis, results indicated that a poor fit between adolescent temperament vulnerabilities and lower parent personality traits, including agreeableness, conscientiousness and emotional stability, was predictive of greater levels of differentiated aggression. For instance, lower father conscientiousness strengthened the relation between higher frustration and reactive overt aggression. Unexpectedly in some cases, temperament risk factors were more strongly associated with aggression subtypes when personality scores were at higher levels, particularly agreeableness and conscientiousness, traits normally considered to be at the optimal end of the dimension. For example, higher father agreeableness strengthened the relation between higher frustration and reactive relational aggression. At the main effects level, low fearfulness was significantly associated with only the overt subtypes of aggression, and unexpectedly, higher frustration and lower effortful control were related to both proactive and reactive subtypes of aggression. A temperamentally vulnerable adolescent was also at greater risk of displaying aggressive behaviour when the father lacked emotional stability, but not the mother. These results are broadly consistent with the prediction that temperament risk factors are more strongly associated with aggression subtypes when an adolescent predisposition does not fit well with parent personality traits. Mechanisms pertaining to stress in the family environment and the fostering of self-regulation abilities are discussed with respect to why a poor fit between temperament and parent personality is predictive of adolescent differentiated aggression.

Factors Associated with Small Aggressive Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinomas

Small aggressive non-small cell lung carcinomas (SA-NSCLC) are characterized by spread to distant lymph nodes and metastases, even while the primary tumour remains small in size, as opposed to tumours that are relatively large before cancer progression. These small aggressive cancers present a challenge for clinical diagnosis and screening, carry grave prognosis, and may benefit from using a targeted approach to identify high-risk individuals. The objectives of this thesis were to identify factors associated with SA-NSCLC, and compare survivorship of stage IV SA-NSCLC to large stage IV NSCLC. Logistic and Cox regression analysis were performed using data from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). Model building was guided by knowledge of lung carcinogenesis and lung cancer prognostic factors. Previous diagnosis of emphysema and positive family history of lung cancer in females were associated with increased risk of SA-NSCLC among adenocarcinomas. Despite overall poor prognosis, SA-NSCLC have a better prognosis compared to large stage IV NSCLC.

Some Incidents and Circumstances Written by William F. Haile in the Course of his Life, 1859

William Frederick Haile was born in Putney, Windham County, Vermont on November 4th, 1791. He was raised in Fairfield, Herkimer County, New York. At the age of 21 he entered the United States Army. He served in the War of 1812 as a lieutenant in the 11th United States Infantry. He was severely wounded in the Battle of Lundy’s Lane [not mentioned in this memoir]. After the war he settled in Plattsburgh, New York and became a lawyer. He was a judge from April 1837 to March of 1843. He was also the fifth collector of customs for the District of Champlain. He died on October 1861 at the age of 69. This document was written for the children of William Frederick Haile in January of 1859 [as noted on p.23]. The memoir ends in July of 1814 before the Battle of Lundy’s Lane. Haile’s memoir is laced with names of military personnel and he expresses his opinions freely.

Some Incidents and Circumstances

- The first part of the document traces Mr. Haile’s lineage. His father, James Haile was a farmer. His grandfather, Amos Haile was a sailor for the early part of his life. He was placed on a British man-of- war in about 1758. He escaped and settled in Putney. (p.1) - His father’s mother’s maiden name was Parker. His mother’s maiden name was Campbell. Her father was a captain in the Revolutionary Army. (p.2) - His earliest memories revolve around the death of his aunt and the funeral of General Washington (although he did not witness this). At the time, his father was a Lieutenant in a regiment militia of Light Dragoons who wore red coats. (p.3) - In 1804, an addition was added to the Haile house which necessitated that William was to stay home to help with the building. He continued to study and read on his own. He was particularly interested in Napoleon Bonaparte’s victories. In that same year he was sent to Fairfield Academy where Reverend Caleb Alexander was the principal. (p.4) - On June 1, 1812, William was appointed as an Ensign in the Infantry of the Army of the United States. He was put into the recruiting service at Nassau (20 miles east of Albany) where he remained until September. (p.4) - He was assigned to the 11th Regiment of the W.S. Infantry and directed to proceed to Plattsburgh to report to Colonel Isaac Clark. (p.7) - He was assigned to the company commanded by Captain Samuel H. Halley who was not in the best of health and often absent. For a good part of the time William was in charge of the company. (p.8) - The 11th Regiment was encamped beside the 15th Regiment commanded by Col. Zebulon Montgomery Pike [Pike’s Peak was named after him]. Col. Pike generously drilled and disciplined the 11th Regiment since their officers didn’t seem capable of doing so. (p.8) - The first brigade to which William’s regiment was attached to was commanded by Brigadier General Bloomfield of New Jersey. Brigadier Chandler of Maine commanded the second brigade. (p.9) - At the beginning of November, Major General Dearborn took command of the army. He had been a good officer in his time, but William refers to him as “old and inefficient” earning him the nickname “Granny Dearborn” (p.9) - On November 17th, 1812, General Dearborn moved north with his army. The troops ended up in Champlain. There was no fighting, only a skirmish between a party of men under Colonel Pike and a few British troops who he succeeded in capturing. (p.10) - The troops were moved to barracks for the winter. Colonel Pike’s troops were put into suitable barracks and kept healthy but another part of the army (including the 11th Regiment) were sent to a barracks of green lumber north of Burlington. Disease soon broke out in the damp barracks and the hundreds of deaths soon followed. One morning, William counted 22 bodies who had died the previous night. He puts a lot of this down to an inexperienced commanding officer, General Chandler. (p.11) - At the beginning of 1813, William was stationed as a recruiter on the shore of Shoreham across from Fort Ticonderoga. In February, he returned to Burlington with his recruits. In March he received an order from General Chandler to proceed to Whitehall and take charge of the stores and provisions. In April and May it was decided that his half of the regiment (the First Battalion) should march to Sackett’s Harbour, Lake Ontario. They arrived at Sackett’s Harbour about the 10th of June, a few days after the Battle of Sackett’s Harbour. (p.12) - He was camped near the site of Fort Oswego and got word to head back to Sackett’s Harbour. A storm overtook the schooner that he was on. (p.14) - William was involved in the Battle of Williamsburg (or Chrysler’s Farm) which he calls a “stupid and bungling affair on the part of our generals”.(p. 18) - General Covington was wounded and died a few days after the battle. (p.19) - William speaks of being ill. The troops were ordered to march to Buffalo, but he is able to go to his father’s house in Fairfield where his mother nursed him back to health (p.23) - Upon arrival at Buffalo, the “old fogy Generals” were replaced with younger, more efficient men. (p.25) - On page 27 he sums up a few facts: In 1812, the army was assembled on Lake Champlain with the intention of capturing Montreal, and then Quebec. That year, under General Dearborn the army marched as far as Champlain, then turned back and went into winter quarters. In 1813, the army was assembled at Sackett’s Harbour and that year the campaign ended at French Mills which was 70 or 80 miles from Montreal. In 1814, the army at Buffalo were some 400 miles from Montreal with still the same object in view. - He says that these facts make “a riddle – difficult to explain”. (p.27) - On the evening of July 2nd they embarked on the boats with the objective of capturing Fort Erie. The enemy were all made prisoners of war (p.27) - On July 4th they went to Street’s Creek, 2 miles above the Chippewa [Chippawa] River (p.28) - Page 29 is titled The Battle of Chippewa [Chippawa] - He speaks of 2 drummers who were fighting over the possession of a drum when a cannonball came along and took of both of their heads (p.29) - He proclaims that this was one of the “most brilliant battles of the war”. The battle was fought and won in less than an hour after they left their tents. He credits General Scott with this success and states that was due to his rapid orders and movements. (p.30) - The dead of the battle remained on the field during the night. He describes this as quite gloomy seeing friend and foe lying side by side. At daybreak they set to work digging trenches to bury the dead. (p.31) - Colonel Campbell was wounded and advised to have his leg amputated. He refused, and subsequently died. (p.32) - It is said that the British threw several of their dead into the river and they went over the Falls. (p.32) - His troops repaired the bridge over Chippawa which the enemy had partially destroyed and then pursued the British as far as Queenston Heights. (p.32) - On pages 33 and 34 he speaks about meeting an old friend of his, Philip Harter. - The account ends at Queenston Heights