Songbird response to seismic lines in the western boreal forest: a manipulative experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Millions of kilometres of seismic lines have been created for hydrocarbon exploration in the boreal forest and their impact on songbirds is unknown. I conducted a replicated before–after control–impact (BACI) field experiment in southern Northwest Territories to evaluate the impact of 6 m wide seismic lines on songbirds. Territories of all birds on six pairs of 12 ha control and treatment plots were mapped for one year before and one year after seismic lines were cut through the treatment plots. The songbird community was not dramatically affected by seismic lines. At the community level, birds did not decline in abundance or move their territories relative to the seismic lines, and they included the seismic lines in their territories. However, ground and shrub nesting species that had territories spanning the seismic lines increased the size of their territories. At the species level, only the Ovenbird ( Seiurus aurocapilla (L., 1766)) showed a consistent response to seismic lines. Ovenbirds declined in abundance, moved their territories away from seismic lines, and were not observed crossing the lines. Pressure on industry from land managers to reduce the width of seismic lines should continue to minimize the impact of these clearings on all species.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".