Testing the importance of patch scale on forest birds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between population density and habitat area is of central importance to conservation biology, particularly for species dependent on declining habitat. A recent study by Lee et al. in Oikos in 2002 found that the densities of three forest interior bird species (ovenbirds, wood thrushes, and red‐eyed vireos) decline with increasing patch size, contradicting many other studies that demonstrate a positive correlation between area and density for these species. The authors’ argument is based on a misapplied criticism of the prevailing approach based on density‐and on an inappropriate statistical methodology, caused by incorrect specification of the null hypothesis after log–transformation. We use three different methods of testing area‐dependence: a corrected log–abundance log–area regression; a similar abundance–area regression; and the prevailing density‐area approach. For each species, all three methods agree broadly, suggesting the robustness of each approach. For ovenbirds and wood thrushes, we do not find that population density is negatively correlated to patch size. While our analyses of the red‐eyed vireo data find a negative correlation between the two factors, the strength of the correlation is far weaker than that of Lee et al. and may derive from landscape factors unconsidered in the original data. Nevertheless, we do not find positive density–area relationships for any of these forest‐interior species, further underscoring the site‐specificity of the underlying mechanisms of area‐ sensitivity.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".