Elevated numbers of flying insects and insectivorous birds in riparian buffer strips
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared the abundances of flying insects along undisturbed lakeshores and riparian buffer strips in balsam fir (Abies balsamea) forests in western Newfoundland. Insects were collected in pan traps placed on the forest floor and tanglefoot (sticky) traps suspended within the live canopy. Significantly greater numbers of insects were captured in riparian buffer strips than in undisturbed shorelines for four of five size classes in the canopy and two of five size classes in the understory. Collections were dominated by adult Diptera and Hymenoptera. Mean capture rates along buffer strips were 120-200% of the mean capture rates along undisturbed shorelines. This increase was greatest for large-bodied insects. A likely explanation for our observations is that buffer strips act as windbreaks, collecting airborne insects blown in from adjacent clearcuts and lakes. This phenomenon has been widely documented in agricultural landscapes. Understory wind speed was generally greater along buffer strips than controls, which is a reflection of increased exposure caused by clear-cutting. A concurrent parallel study conducted at the same sites investigated the effects of riparian buffering on breeding bird assemblages. Ubiquitous insectivorous birds, including the yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata) and blackpoll warbler (Dendroica striata), were more abundant along buffer strips than undisturbed shorelines, possibly in response to increased prey availability. Increased food availability may in part explain the high numbers of insectivorous birds typically observed in riparian buffer strips in boreal forests.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".