The effect of human disturbance on site habitat diversity and avifauna community composition in suburban conservation areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the causes and effects of habitat heterogeneity in suburban conservation areas of the metropolitan Vancouver area.Site disturbance, soil conditions and plant associations were evaluated for their relationship to habitat heterogeneity.Habitat heterogeneity was correlated with breeding bird populations and the type of birds found.Three, urban conservation sites were surveyed for site conditions and avian populations.Data were spatially referenced in a geographic information system (GIS) and a habitat diversity index rating was calculated for each site.Site habitat diversity ratings were compared with the avian species richness and the birds recorded were classified as urban exploiters, adapters or avoiders.It was found that human disturbance and biotic succession had produced a mosaic of seral stage plant communities that increased habitat heterogeneity.Site-level habitat heterogeneity was correlated with avian species richness.All categories of urban and non-urban birds were recorded.Suburban conservation areas can support high avian species richness, including urban avoiders.Site-level habitat heterogeneity and avian species richness are strongly correlated.These findings can assist in selecting and managing urban conservation sites to maintain regional biodiversity.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".