Long‐Term Effects of Forestry on Birds of the Eastern Canadian Boreal Forests: a Comparison with Fennoscandia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Logging is considered the most important threat to species in boreal forests. In contrast to eastern Canada, where most boreal forests remain largely untouched, in Fennoscandia it is possible to assess the cumulative, long‐term effects of intensive forestry on wildlife. But harvesting of stands is rapidly changing Canadian boreal forests, which represent an important proportion of the world's boreal forests. We show that Fennoscandia and eastern Canada present striking similarities in terms of forest‐age structure, natural‐disturbance regime, and structure of bird assemblages, and we provide an assessment of the long‐term effects of forestry on eastern Canadian birds of the boreal forest. We used life‐history traits from habitat, nesting site, and geographical range to calculate an index of sensitivity to changes induced by modern forestry for boreal species of each region. Tropical migrants commonly found in eastern Canadian boreal forests have life‐history traits that are not threat factors in relation to changes caused by modern forestry. Therefore, the general belief that tropical migrants in North America are more sensitive to landscape changes than those in Europe may not hold for species found in the boreal coniferous forests of eastern Canada. Nine Fennoscandian species present high levels of sensitivity, and at least eight eastern Canadian species are of similar concern. In both regions, most of the sensitive species are resident cavity nesters. Given the important similarities between the two regions, the northern expansion of commercial forestry in eastern Canada is likely to result in the significant decline of several resident species, as has occurred in Fennoscandia.
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 | 0.001 | 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".