Can the effect of tall structures on birds be isolated from other aspects of development?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT As technology and energy development increase, undeveloped land and land traditionally used for agriculture now host structures not part of the historical landscape. These structures (e.g., communication towers, transmission lines) are taller than many objects in natural landscapes. Concerns have been raised regarding the effects of tall structures on birds, primarily functional habitat loss due to avoidance. Two hypotheses have been advanced to explain observed patterns of birds near tall structures: increased perceived predation risk and neophobia. We examined the literature (1969–2013) and used a vote‐counting methodology to document 1) the reported direction (positive or negative) of a potential tall‐structure effect, 2) whether the effect of tall structures can be isolated from other effects of development, 3) whether the study design lent itself to drawing a supportable conclusion, and 4) whether the authors suggested a causal mechanism for any observed pattern. We did not detect any consistent response to tall structures, nor did we find evidence to support the two hypotheses. In addition, a structure's “tallness” could not be isolated from other factors associated with development such as human activity. Understanding causal mechanisms is important for management and conservation because observed effects might not be related to the tallness of the structure but to other factors that could be managed, such as timing of construction. Our results suggest that the effect of tall structures on birds is not well understood, and focused studies that examine before‐and‐after effects and specific causal mechanisms are needed to support effective project siting and conservation planning. © 2014 The Wildlife Society.
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 | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".