Effects of Timber Harvesting and Plantation Development on Cavity-nesting Birds in New Brunswick
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied the abundance of cavity-nesting birds in forestry-related habitats in a region of Acadian forest in New Brunswick. We examined five reference stands of natural forest, a chronosequence of conifer plantations up to 19 years old (the oldest in the study area), two selectively harvested stands, and a 30-year-old naturally regenerated clear-cut. The species richness and abundance of cavity-nesting birds were higher in reference forest (average 10.0 species per stand; 5.3 territories per 10 ha) than in plantations (2.3/stand; 1.0/10 ha), selectively harvested stands (7.0/stand; 3.8/10 ha), or the naturally regenerated clear-cut (5.0/stand; 2.5/10 ha). A cluster analysis segregated the “community” of cavity-nesting birds of natural forest from those of other treatments. Of the various harvested stands and plantations, five with a relatively large number of residual snags clustered similarly in the cluster analysis, while those with no or very few snags also clustered together. We used arrays of nest boxes (12 per stand) to examine whether the availability of cavities was limiting the use of habitats otherwise suitable for foraging by cavity-dependent species. Nest-box use for nesting and roosting was much higher in the seven plantations examined (average 4.0/10 ha for nesting and 2.9/10 ha for roosting) than in three reference stands (each 0.3/10 ha), suggesting that the plantations were deficient in this critical-habitat element. Our results suggest that certain mitigations, such as leaving residual snags and living cavity-trees, would help maintain populations of some cavity-dependent birds in clear-cuts and plantations. However, some cavity-dependent species might not be accommodated by these mitigations and are potentially at risk in intensively managed areas, unless landscape-scale management plans ensure the survival of sufficient areas of older mixed-wood forest.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".