Insect outbreaks increase populations and facilitate reproduction in a cavity‐dependent songbird, the<scp>M</scp>ountain<scp>C</scp>hickadee<i><scp>P</scp>oecile gambeli</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large‐scale insect outbreaks, typical of temperate ecosystems, may increase food availability and influence species interactions in insectivorous bird communities. We assessed how population densities of a secondary cavity nester, theMountainChickadeePoecile gambeli, varied with densities of avian cavity excavators, potential competitors and nest predators, during two large‐scale insect outbreaks ofWesternSpruceBudwormChoristoneura occidentalisandMountainPineBeetleDendroctonus ponderosae. At the regional level,MountainChickadee densities doubled with increases in budworm and beetle availability, then declined with decreases in beetle availability, despite high budworm supply. At the site level, densities of excavators were the best predictor of site‐level variation inChickadee densities in the following year. During and after the beetle outbreak,MountainChickadees used more cavities excavated byRed‐breastedNuthatchesSitta canadensisandDownyWoodpeckersPicoides pubescens, both of which are bark insectivores that increased in densities concomitantly with the beetle outbreak and whose foraging activities may have facilitated theMountainChickadees' access to bark beetles. Thus,MountainChickadees showed a numerical response to the food pulse at the regional level, but a functional response to the pulse of nesting cavities at the site level. Plasticity in resource selection and heterospecific attraction may allowMountainChickadees to respond to resource pulses in highly variable environments.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".