Habitat selection in site-faithful ovenbirds and recruits in the absence of experimental attraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Partial harvesting of forest stands has been shown to cause significant changes in the density of many bird species. However, the behavioral response of individuals to alteration of their habitat has rarely been investigated. Without this information, it is difficult to determine whether shifts in density reflect a response to habitat structure or the use of personal or public information. In this study, we compared the territory settlement sequence of male ovenbirds (Seiurus aurocapilla) with or without prior experience in our study plots upon their return from spring migration. We monitored settlement patterns in 2 pairs of 25-ha plots, 1 plot of each pair having been treated through selection harvesting (30–40% removal) in the winter of 2006–2007. From the second to the fourth year postharvest, control plots were first occupied at least 2–5 days earlier than treated plots. Males who bred successfully in a given year were more likely to return to the same plot the following year, independently of treatment. On average, banded males returning from previous years also tended to settle later in treated plots, but there was no treatment effect on the average settlement date of unbanded recruits. Recruits were never found to settle before the first returning male. Although patterns of first occupation suggest that ovenbirds preferred control plots, conspecific attraction (for recruits) and personal information (for returning individuals) seemed to play a greater role than vegetation structure in the habitat selection process.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".