Understanding avian responses to forest boundaries: a case study with chickadee winter flocks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Avian species diversity and territory location are often associated with sharp forest edges, or boundaries. However, our understanding of behaviours underlying avian distribution near forest boundaries, especially species with large home ranges, remains poor. In a two‐year study, we measured chickadee flock movements in forests at 0–300 m from boundaries in an agricultural landscape near Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Even though flocks foraged in all forested parts of the study area, only six of the 53 flocks studied foraged further from forest boundaries than expected if they had used their home range irrespectively of the distance to boundaries. We found no evidence that the association of chickadee flocks to forest boundaries resulted from vegetation changes near boundaries, or to changes in their foraging sites and foraging success near boundaries. However, chickadee flocks moved parallel to boundaries (<75 m away) twice as frequently as expected from random movement, thus suggesting that forest boundaries act as movement conduits. Even when birds do not apparently seek special features near forest boundaries, they may be closely associated with them, simply because their passive movements are constrained by habitat barriers defined by boundaries.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.006 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".