The influence of residual tree patch isolation on habitat use by bats in central British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(Uploaded by Plazi for the Bat Literature Project) One forest management practice associated with logging aimed at contributing to the maintenance of biodiversity is to leave residual tree patches within cut blocks. Using Anabat bat-detectors we monitored bat activity along residual tree patch edges and clear-cut edges associated with recent clear-cuts in north-central British Columbia. We tested two hypotheses, (1) relative bat activity would be higher on the clear-cut edge than the residual patch edge, (2) relative bat activity would decrease on the residual patch edge with increasing isolation from the clear-cut edge. We sampled six pairs of edges and found no significant difference in bat activity between patch and clear-cut edges. We found a significant but non-linear relationship between relative bat activity on the patch edge with increasing patch isolation. Bat activity on the residual patch edge was highest at intermediate levels of patch isolation and lower both at patch edges close to, and highly isolated from the clear-cut edge. We postulate that the reason for this relationship is that patches act as windbreaks collecting high densities of insects making them good foraging areas but this benefit is coupled with an increased risk of predation associated with crossing large gaps. At low levels of patch isolation bats may perceive residual patches and adjacent clear-cut edges as a continuous foraging area and thus, bat activity is evenly distributed throughout both habitats. In summary, our data indicate that patches provide localized habitat for foraging bats, however, foraging areas are only one habitat component required by bats and it remains uncertain if patches also offer suitable roosting opportunities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".