Demographic Responses by Birds to Forest Fragmentation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Despite intensive recent research on the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on bird populations, our understanding of underlying demographic causes of population declines is limited. We reviewed avian demography in relation to habitat fragmentation. Then, through a meta‐analysis, we compared specific demographic responses by forest birds to habitat fragmentation, providing a general perspective of factors that make some species and populations more vulnerable to fragmentation than others. We obtained data from the scientific literature on dispersal, survival, fecundity, and nesting success of birds. Birds were divided into subgroups on the basis of region, nest site, biogeographical history, and migration strategy. Species most sensitive to fragmentation were ground‐ or open‐nesters nesting in shrubs or trees. Residents were equally sensitive to fragmentation in the Nearctic and Palearctic regions, but Nearctic migrants were more sensitive than Palearctic migrants. Old World species were less sensitive than New World species, which was predicted based on the history of forest fragmentation on these two continents. Pairing success was the variable most associated with fragmentation, suggesting an important role of dispersal. Fledgling number or condition, timing of nesting, and clutch size were not associated with sensitivity to fragmentation, suggesting that negative fragmentation effects on birds do not generally result from diminished food resources with increasing level of fragmentation. Future studies on demographic responses of birds to habitat fragmentation would be more effective if based on a combination of measures that can distinguish among the demographic mechanisms underlying population changes related to habitat fragmentation.
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.
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) | 0.002 | 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 it