RESIDUAL TREE RETENTION AMELIORATES SHORT-TERM EFFECTS OF CLEAR-CUTTING ON SOME BOREAL SONGBIRDS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Retention of residual trees in “cutblocks,” logged blocks of forest, has been proposed as a method to conserve songbirds in landscapes fragmented by clear-cut logging. We examined songbird communities in the boreal mixed-wood forest of Alberta, Canada, to investigate the effect on songbird abundance of (1) logging and (2) retaining variable densities of residual trees in cutblocks (10–133 trees/ha or basal area of 0.50–10.65 m2). We surveyed songbirds in logged and forested, aspen-dominated, mixed-wood stands in the year before, the year after, and three years after logging. We analyzed changes in abundance of 27 common songbird species: 23 present in the forest prior to logging and four that appeared after logging. Ten species declined with logging and were termed “forest species.” Ten more species did not change with logging and were called “habitat generalists.” The seven species that increased with logging were called “cutblock species.” When the effect of residual tree retention was examined in terms of basal area (rather than density) of residual trees, more songbird species were found to be both positively and negatively affected by residual tree retention, despite the fact that the two tree measures were highly correlated. In the first year after logging, four bird species (two forest, one generalist, and one cutblock) increased, and none decreased with increasing residual tree retention in cutblocks. In the third year after logging, again four species increased with increasing retention, but these were different species than in the first year after logging (one forest and three generalist species). Furthermore, four cutblock species decreased with increasing retention. Based on these findings, we conclude that retention of residual trees may be beneficial to some species, although conservation of unlogged reserves is also important. Most importantly, we recommend that research be continued to examine a larger range of tree retention and longer term effects on the avifauna.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".