MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047374071 · doi:10.1139/x06-017

Changes in bird communities throughout succession following fire and harvest in boreal forests of western North America: literature review and meta-analyses

2006· article· en· W2047374071 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jim Schieck, Samantha J. Song

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcological successionTaigaEcologyDisturbance (geology)Seral communityGeographyClearcuttingAbundance (ecology)BorealSpecies richnessOld-growth forestForestryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Within boreal forests of western North America, the dominant large-scale natural disturbance is wildfire. Thus, harvesting that is as similar as possible to fire is expected to best maintain natural bird communities. We reviewed studies of birds (mainly grouse, woodpeckers, and songbirds) from boreal forests of western North America and conducted meta-analyses to compare the similarity of bird communities occurring postfire versus postharvest. We compared the bird communities at five seral stages and also summarized the effects of retaining large live trees at harvest. Bird communities immediately postharvest differed greatly from those postfire. Differences between disturbance types disappeared as the forest regenerated, and both disturbance types became dominated by relatively few bird species in 31- to 75-year-old forests. During the period 76–125 years postdisturbance, old-forest birds became present and bird species richness increased. However, the trajectory of forest succession during this period influenced bird communities; old aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.), old mixedwood, and old white spruce (Picea glauca Moench (Voss)) forests all had different bird communities. Retention of large live trees in cutblocks resulted in their use by many old-forest birds, but results were not consistent among studies. Although most bird species had clear peaks in abundance in a specific forest type, no species with more than five detections was limited to a single forest type.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.008
Bibliometrics0.0110.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations180
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207