MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reduced Density and Nest Survival of Ground‐Nesting Songbirds Relative to Earthworm Invasions in Northern Hardwood Forests

2011· article· en· W1501234491 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Scott R. Loss, Robert B. Blair

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation Biology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Graduate EducationUniversity of MinnesotaAmerican Ornithologists' UnionNational Science Foundation
KeywordsNest (protein structural motif)HardwoodEarthwormNesting (process)EcologyGeographyForestryBiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

European earthworms (Lumbricus spp.) are spreading into previously earthworm-free forests in the United States and Canada and causing substantial changes, including homogenization of soil structure, removal of the litter layer, and reduction in arthropod abundance and species richness of understory plants. Whether these changes affect songbirds that nest and forage on the forest floor is unknown. In stands with and without earthworms in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, Wisconsin (U.S.A.), we surveyed for, monitored nests of, and measured attributes of habitat of Ovenbirds (Seiurus aurocapillus) and Hermit Thrushes (Catharus guttatus), both ground-dwelling songbirds, and we sampled earthworms at survey points and nests. Bird surveys indicated significantly lower densities of Ovenbirds and Hermit Thrushes in relation to Lumbricus invasions at survey point and stand extents (3.1 and 15-20 ha, respectively). Modeling of Ovenbird nest survival (i.e., the probability that nestlings successfully fledge) indicated that lower survival probabilities were associated with increased sedge cover and decreased litter depth, factors that are related to Lumbricus invasions, possibly due to reduced nest concealment or arthropod abundance. Our findings provide compelling evidence that earthworm invasions may be associated with local declines of forest songbird populations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.928

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations64
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConservation BiologySame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207