MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061359192 · doi:10.1890/13-1711.1

Responses of cavity‐nesting birds to fire: testing a general model with data from the Northern Flicker

2014· article· en· W2061359192 on OpenAlexafffund
Karen L. Wiebe

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhilopatryNest (protein structural motif)TerritorialityEcologyAnatidaeHabitatReproductive successPopulationGeographyBiologyWaterfowlNesting (process)ReproductionAvian clutch sizeDemographyBiological dispersal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Census‐based studies document changes in population size of animal species in response to wildfires, but mechanisms involving behavior of individuals and the effects on reproductive success are usually unknown. I developed a conceptual model explaining the persistence of cavity‐nesting birds on the landscape after fires depending on carrying capacity (food supply) of the habitat and the philopatry and territoriality of the species. The breeding density, nest site characteristics, and reproductive success of Northern Flickers Colaptes auratus was studied before and after low‐ to moderate‐severity fires on replicated plots. The density and spatial distribution of nests did not change in a consistent way after fires, but the rates of cavity excavation increased and characteristics of nest sites changed as such decay class of the tree. Laying dates were delayed and clutches were smaller in freshly excavated vs. reused cavities on the burned sites. Breeding philopatry caused a shift to older age classes in the population. Depredation of nests by small mammals increased during the first three years after fires, reducing the number of young produced per nest attempt on burned plots. The study shows that, even when fire does not reduce the density of breeding pairs, there may be detrimental effects detected only by monitoring the behavior and reproduction of individuals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations31
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcologySame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207