Songbird abundance in clear-cut and burned stands: a comparison of natural disturbance and forest management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate the efficacy of forest management to emulate natural disturbance, we compared bird abundances among burned and clear-cut, former black spruce (Picea mariana (Mill.) BSP) sites, after 5, 14, and 27 years of succession. Total bird density was lower in clear-cut sites resulting from fewer hermit thrushes, yellow warblers, Swainson's thrushes, and fox sparrows. Hermit thrushes were positively correlated with snag density while yellow warblers and Swainson's thrushes were positively associated with deciduous tree cover and negatively correlated with conifer cover. Only yellow-rumped warblers had higher densities on clear-cut sites, likely due to greater conifer cover. Bird densities and species richness peaked in the 14-year-old burns and exceeded that of mature forests reported for Labrador. This demonstrates the importance of natural early successional forests for birds. Although logged areas support several species found in natural young burns, logging does not precisely mimic fire. This suggests that forest managers should allow some forests to burn naturally.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".