Effect of selection logging on Yellow-bellied Sapsucker sap-feeding habits in Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sap-feeding behaviour of a keystone woodpecker species, the Yellow-bellied Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius (Linnaeus, 1766)), was compared between high-quality uncut stands and stands harvested with various forms of selection logging in the hardwood forests of Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario. We examined (i) the average distances that sapsuckers travelled from their nest tree to sapwell trees, (ii) the characteristics of active sapwell trees compared with overall stand characteristics, and (iii) the reuse of sapwell trees after 1 or 2 years. We found that sapsuckers travelled approximately the same average distance from their nests to sapwell trees, regardless of logging treatment. The characteristics of sapwell trees were overall unaffected by logging: unhealthy trees, sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marshall), and yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis Britton) were used at similar proportions to their stand-level availability in reference and harvested stands. Trees with old sapwells and large-diameter trees were used significantly more than their stand-level availability; thus the retention of these trees during tree-marking procedures may preserve sap foraging habitat. The reuse of sapwell trees did not vary between treatments, and on average, over half of the sapwell trees showed evidence of reuse the following year.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".