Reproductive success of cavity-nesting birds in partially harvested woodlots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cavity-nesting birds are dependent on large declining and dead trees that are frequently removed during partial harvesting. We compared breeding densities, nest survival, nest site characteristics, food abundance, and reproductive parameters of six species of cavity-nesting birds in partially harvested and reference woodlots in southwestern Ontario, Canada. Silvicultural practices significantly altered woodlot structure, with treatment-specific effects on bark arthropod biomass, fledging dates for the Red-bellied Woodpecker ( Melanerpes carolinus (Linnaeus, 1758)), and site suitability for the Yellow-bellied Sapsucker ( Sphyrapicus varius (Linnaeus, 1766)). Red-bellied Woodpecker, Downy Woodpecker ( Picoides pubescens (Linnaeus, 1766)), and Hairy Woodpecker ( Picoides villosus (Linnaeus, 1766)) experienced lower breeding densities in recently cut sites. Daily survival rates were generally greater for nests positioned higher up in large trees and for Northern Flicker ( Colaptes auratus (Linnaeus, 1758)) nests excavated in healthy and hard wood. Conversely, the Black-capped Chickadee ( Poecile atricapillus (Linnaeus, 1766)) had higher daily survival rates in low, small trees (<10 cm diameter at breast height) and sites with lower arthropod abundance. We conclude that although partial harvesting has the potential to decrease cavity-nesting bird breeding densities, conscientious cavity tree retention during harvest may provide suitable nesting sites that maintain high rates of nest success, regardless of the silvicultural treatments that we examined. However, further research is required to monitor these trends beyond a single harvesting rotation.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".