RESPONSE OF WINTERING BOREAL CHICKADEES (<i>POECILE HUDSONICA</i>) TO FOREST EDGES: DOES WEATHER MATTER?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Avian responses to forest edges have received much attention in recent years, particularly because of the potential effects of deforestation on the quality of remaining forest patches. However, individual birds' responses to forest edges are more often inferred than observed, and most studies of space use emphasize territory placement, with little or no detail on within-territory movements. Thus, our understanding of the effects of edges on movements of forest birds remains limited. We recorded movements of 85 winter flocks of the little-known Boreal Chickadee (Poecile hudsonica), in a 66-km2 boreal forest harvested for timber near Québec City, Québec. From January to March 2004 and 2005, we followed flocks on snowshoes and recorded their trajectory in real time using a handheld global positioning system (GPS) receiver. Boreal Chickadee flocks showed no response to forest edges when using mature forest stands. However, flocks mostly used edges of regenerating forest habitat (4–7 m high). Inside regenerating forest, flocks were significantly closer to both open edges (41 ± 6 m) and mature forest edges (11 ± 2 m) than would be expected from a lack of response to edges. Boreal Chickadee flocks did not avoid exposed edges of mature forest on the coldest or windiest days. On colder days, they were found disproportionately more often along edges between mature and regenerating stands, but generally avoided exposed edges of regenerating stands. Increasing edge densities resulting from clearcutting in boreal forest did not have a negative effect on use of remaining mature-forest patches, even under inclement weather. However, in regenerating stands resulting from timber harvest, Boreal Chickadee movements may be restricted during harsh weather. Réponse de Poecile hudsonica face aux bordures forestières en hiver: quelle est l'importance des conditions météorologiques?
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 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) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".