MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Using bird species community occurrence to prioritize forests for old growth restoration

2012· article· en· W2014629498 on OpenAlexafffund
Richard Schuster, Peter Arcese

Bibliographic record

VenueEcography · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersParks Canada
KeywordsSpecies richnessOccupancyHabitatEcologyGeographyAbundance (ecology)Range (aeronautics)Species distributionBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conservation often focuses on ‘ecologically intact’ habitats with little human influence. But where all such habitats have been lost or modified, identifying promising restoration targets is a key goal. We describe a direct approach to identify high conservation value targets using predictive distribution maps of taxa that, based on habitat affinity, ease of detection and abundance can be used to infer native species richness and prioritize conservation investment. We used 1169 avian point counts in a 1560 km2 study area, remote‐sensed data and models incorporating imperfect detectability to predict habitat occupancy in 18 widely‐distributed native birds; 12 of which were determined by experts to be positive indicators of old‐forest conditions. Forest‐association scores for these 12 species where then used as weights in a composite distribution map of the probability of community occurrence, which corresponded well with the occurrence of old forest stands mapped by aerial photography. Our results indicate that composite maps of widespread indicators improve site prioritization by incorporating the behavioural and demographic responses of a diverse range of indicators to variation in patch size, configuration and adjacent human land use.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations31
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcographySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207