Nest cavity availability and selection in aspenconifer groves in a grassland landscape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cavity-nesting vertebrates, a significant component of forest wildlife communities, are connected ecologically in nest webs arranged in guilds of cavity producers (strong and weak excavators) and cavity consumers. The availability of tree cavities for nesting and roosting is considered critical to maintaining communities of cavity nesters. Using univariate tests and resource selection indices, we examined nesting use of both natural and excavated cavities in small aspenconifer groves of interior British Columbia in relation to availability of cavity, tree, and habitat features. In a 2-year study, we monitored 197 cavities for use, 8% of which were lost between years. Of those that survived, 26% were occupied in both years, 29% were used in only one year, and 45% were not used in either year. Occupied cavities were larger internally than those not occupied in either year and were more likely to be in trees with only one cavity. In species-level resource selection analyses, tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor Vieillot), European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris L.), and chickadees (Poecile spp.) used live, heart rot infected trees more than expected from their proportional abundance and used dead trees less than expected, while northern flickers (Colaptes auratus L.), mountain bluebirds (Sialia currucoides Bechstein), and red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Erxleben) used live and dead trees in proportion to their availability. Managed, open landscapes with small mixed or deciduous forest groves can sustain healthy communities of cavity nesters, if there is a range of suitable trees for excavators and open areas for foraging.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".