Woodpeckers, decay, and the future of cavity‐nesting vertebrate communities worldwide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In forests worldwide, tree‐cavity supply can limit populations of the 10–40% of bird and mammal species that require cavities for nesting or roosting. Conservation efforts aimed at cavity‐using communities have often focused on woodpeckers because, as cavity excavators, they are presumed to control cavity supply. We show that avian excavators are the primary cavity producers in North America (77% of nesting cavities), but not elsewhere (26% in Eurasia and South America; 0% in Australasia). We studied survivorship of 2805 nest cavities and found similar persistence of cavities created by woodpeckers and those created by decay in Canada, but low persistence of woodpecker‐excavated cavities in Poland and Argentina. Outside of North America, the ephemeral nature of many woodpecker cavities may render most cavity‐using vertebrates critically dependent on the slow formation of cavities by damage and decay. The future of most cavity‐using communities will therefore be highly dependent on changing forest policies to stem the current loss of old trees.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".