MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Seasonal Abundance and Species Richness of Birds in Common Reed Habitats in Lake Erie

2010· article· en· W1987351583 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shawn W. Meyer, Shannon S. Badzinski, Scott A. Petrie, C. Davison Ankney

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsBirds CanadaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpecies richnessPhragmitesHabitatMarshEcologyAbundance (ecology)WetlandRelative species abundanceCommon speciesTyphaGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Common reed ( Phragmites australis ) forms dense stands with deep layers of residual organic matter that negatively affects plant diversity and possibly habitat use by wetland birds. We sought to determine whether seasonal relative abundance and species richness of birds varied among 3 habitat types in Great Lakes coastal wetland complexes recently invaded by common reed. We used fixed‐distance point counts to determine species relative abundances and species richness in edge and interior locales within common reed, cattail ( Typha spp.), and meadow marsh habitats of various sizes during 2 summers (2001 and 2002) and 1 autumn (2001) at Long Point, Lake Erie, Ontario, Canada. We found that total relative abundance and species richness of birds were greater in common reed habitat compared to cattail or meadow marsh habitats. However, we also found that relative abundance of marsh‐nesting birds was greater in meadow marsh habitat than in cattail and common reed during summer. Lastly, we found that, irrespective of habitat type, habitat edges had higher total relative abundance and species richness of birds than did habitat interiors. Our results show that common reed provides suitable habitat for a diversity of landbirds during summer and autumn but only limited habitat for many marsh‐nesting birds during summer. Based on these results, we recommend restoration of meadow marsh habitat through reduction of common reed in Great Lakes wetlands where providing habitat for breeding marsh‐nesting birds is an objective. Managers also might consider reducing the size of nonnative common reed stands to increase edge effect and use by birds, possibly including wetland birds.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.696

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207