Local-Scale Association of Boreal Birds with Clearcuts Does Not Translate to the Landscape Scale
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Many boreal forest birds, including the Common Nighthawk and Eastern Whip-poor-will, have shown recent steep population declines.Both species are known to use clearcuts as habitat locally; however this relationship has not been tested at a landscape-scale.In this study I addressed the question: Are landscapes with more clearcut associated with higher occupancy of Common Nighthawk and Eastern Whip-poor-will?I selected 49 recent clearcuts (≤ 15 years old) of similar size and placed acoustic recorders on their edges.I measured the proportion of recent clearcut within multiple spatial extents around each bird sample site.I also measured the proportion of open wetland in the landscapes as a covariate.Occurrence of neither species was significantly affected by the proportion of clearcut in the surrounding landscape, at any of the tested spatial extents.However, Common Nighthawk occupancy was lower in landscapes with higher proportions of older (11-15years old) clearcuts, and for both species occupancy was higher in landscapes with higher proportions of open wetland, significantly so for Eastern Whippoor-will.I propose that these species nest on clearcut edges because they seem to be similar to other open habitat like wetland edges.However, clearcuts may not offer the same level of insect prey supply as offered in the open wetlands and therefore do not act as similar foraging habitat.Thus, clearcut edges may act as ecological traps, attracting birds to nest in areas of lower habitat quality.I demonstrated that local-scale habitat associations do not necessarily scale up to a landscape-scale.My results suggest that the conservation of open wetlands will be important for persistence of these boreal bird species.supervisors but have also been mentors and sources of inspiration to me throughout these years.I could not have asked for a more intelligent, invested, and optimistic group of scientists to work with.I would also like to thank Dr. Gabriel Blouin-Demers not only for taking the time be on my advisory committee, but also for his advice and helpful feedback throughout this process.I would also like to acknowledge the help of Dr. Steve Cooke and Dr. Stacey Robinson for their participation and input in the defence process.My field work could not have been completed without my field assistant Amanda Findlay and her dedication to the project.I thank Dr. Rob Mackereth with the Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research, not only for his logistical help, but also for his belief in my abilities as a researcher.Thank you to Vince Caruana and Mona Caruana for their donation of field lodgings and Christine Eberl for her
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».