Pattern and process in forest bird communities on boreal landscapes originating from wildfire and timber harvest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Policy direction to emulate natural disturbance in managed boreal forests has spurred a need to contrast the dynamics of biota on landscapes originating from timber harvest and from wildfire (hereafter, “managed” and “natural”). Typically, emphasis is on pattern emulation, and less on processes, such as competition, predation or habitat selection. Knowing how communities in the boreal forest assemble can provide further insight to the effects of anthropogenic disturbance on the processes responsible, permitting assessments about whether forestry practices emulate processes as well as patterns. We contrasted variation in species richness among forest types, with stand area, and between local (forest stand) and regional (landscape) scales on managed and natural boreal landscapes in NW Ontario. Species richness varied more among forest stand types than between landscapes, or with stand area, on either landscape. On both landscapes, mean local species richness was 1/3 of regional richness, consistent with the hypothesis that competition structured stand-level assemblages regardless of stand origin. We further compared the structure of stand-level assemblages from randomized null models using presence/absence and abundance data with observed assemblages on each landscape, while controlling for variation in habitat structure among stands. Local bird assemblages were over-dispersed in niche space relative to random assemblages, also consistent with the competition hypothesis, regardless of stand origin. We found no evidence that patterns of variation in diversity of songbirds and woodpeckers, nor the processes that govern them, differed between managed and natural boreal forest landscapes. Our results suggest that past forest practices in this region, if by default, nevertheless emulated natural patterns of variation in diversity and species assembly of bird communities. Key words: boreal forest, songbirds, woodpeckers, community assembly, null models, natural disturbance emulation, forestry, Ontario
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".