Effects of forest harvesting on Bufflehead and Common Loon foraging behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared foraging behavior of Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola Linnaeus) and Common Loon (Gavia immer Brünnich) on eight lakes in harvested and unharvested boreal mixedwood forest in northern Alberta, Canada. For one summer before (1996) and two summers after (1997, 1998) forest harvesting around three of the eight lakes, we recorded the duration of Bufflehead and Common Loon dives. After logging, forested buffer strips 100 m-wide separated cut-blocks from lakes (‘harvested lakes’). ‘Unharvested lakes’ were surrounded by ⩾450 m of undisturbed forest throughout the study. There were no detectable differences in dive duration between harvested and unharvested lakes for Bufflehead or Common Loon. Correlations between environmental variables (water clarity, fish biomass, depth) and the duration of Common Loon dives were not significant. However, the duration of Bufflehead dives differed between lakes, unrelated to forest harvesting. The duration of Buffle-head dives was negatively correlated with water clarity but was not significantly correlated with fish biomass. While our study shows that the foraging behavior of Buffle-heads was affected by lake conditions, the utility of aquatic birds as indicators of the effects of forestry on western boreal lakes remains unproven.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".