Bird Communities of Prairie Uplands and Wetlands in Relation to Farming Practices in Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Modern farm practices can vary in their emphasis on tillage versus chemicals to control weeds, and researchers know little about which emphasis has greater ecological benefits. We compared avifaunas of uplands and wetlands in four treatments: conventional farms, conservation farms (contrasting those that minimized frequency of tillage [minimum tillage] with those that eliminated chemical inputs [organic]), and restored or natural (wild) sites in Saskatchewan, Canada. Of 37 different upland bird species encountered during surveys, one made greater use of farms, four made greater use of wild sites, and the remaining species showed no preference. When all upland species were combined, higher relative abundance occurred on wild than on farm sites, and on minimum tillage than on conventional farms. Wild upland sites also had more species than did conventional farms. Of 79 different species encountered during surveys of wetlands and their margins, most had similar encounter probabilities among treatments, although seven were more common on either organic farms or wild sites. Higher relative abundances were documented in wetland habitat of wild sites and organic farms than of minimum tillage or conventional farms. Wetlands of wild sites had more species than did minimum tillage or conventional farms. Overall, in terms of both avifaunal density and diversity, small treatment effects could be ascribed to differences between conventional and conservation farms, whereas larger effects were due to differences between farms and wild sites. Wetlands were heavily used by birds in all treatments, suggesting high conservation priority regardless of context.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".