Yearling proportion correlates with habitat structure in a boreal forest landbird community
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Landbird vital rates, such as productivity and adult survivorship, can be estimated by modeling mist-netting capture data. The proportion in which an adult breeding bird is 1 year of age (a "yearling"), however, has been studied only minimally in a few landbird species. Here we relate yearling proportion to habitat-structure covariates, including reclamation age, in a boreal forest landbird community. Data were collected at 35 constant-effort mist-netting stations over a 6-year period, and consisted of 12,714 captures of adults, of 29 landbird species, including 4,943 captures of yearlings. Accuracy of age determination (yearling or older) was assessed based on recapture data and error rates were estimated at a mean of 8.1% (range 0.0-19.4%) among the 29 species, with 20 species showing age-error rates <10%. The estimated mean yearling proportion was 0.407, ranging from 0.178 to 0.613 among species. Remote-sensed Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI), a measure of habitat greenness, was positively correlated with age since reclamation up to 20 years, at which time it became comparable to that of natural stations. The probability of capturing a yearling for species associated with mature forest was lower at stations with higher EVI and the opposite was the case for species favoring successional habitats. These results suggest that yearling birds are being excluded from preferred breeding habitats by older birds through despotism and/or that yearlings are simply selecting poorer habitat due to lack of breeding experience or other factors. This dynamic appears to be operating in multiple species within this forest landbird community. Captured yearlings may also be "floaters", or non-breeding individuals not holding territories. However, presuming that yearlings show lower reproductive success whether floating or not, our results suggest that stations with high yearling proportions could be located within sink as opposed to source habitats. Overall, we infer that yearling proportion may become an important vital-rate measure of habitat quality and reclamation efforts, when combined with indices of population size, productivity, reproductive condition and survivorship.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 | 0,000 | 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) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».