Persistence of tree cavities used by cavity‐nesting vertebrates declines in harvested forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An abundant supply of cavity‐bearing trees is important for maintaining wildlife communities in harvested forests. During harvesting, suitable trees and cavities are directly removed, and the longevity of cavities in retained trees may be reduced by increased exposure to wind and other disturbance factors. We examined patterns of cavity survival in retained trembling aspen ( Populus tremuloides ) trees in harvested stands compared with those in unharvested mature stands by monitoring the persistence of individual cavities. We followed 930 cavities in 3 harvest treatments for up to 17 years in pre‐cut and uncut forest, and up to 13 years post‐harvest (reserve patches and dispersed retention), in temperate‐mixed forests of interior British Columbia, Canada. Average annual cavity loss rates were 5.6% in pre‐cut and uncut forest, 7.2% for cavities in trees retained in reserves, and 8.1% for cavities in retained trees dispersed throughout cuts. Correspondingly, median cavity longevity was 15 years for cavities in pre‐cut and uncut forest, 10 years for cavities retained in reserves, and 9 years for those in dispersed retention. Risk of loss increased most for cavities in living trees (factor of 2.17), but we found no detectable difference for cavities in recently dead trees and trees with advanced decay. We suggest retention of a range of aspen size and decay classes to allow for future cavity‐tree recruitment in harvested stands. Inclusion of wildlife reserves as part of an overall forest management plan will also help to mitigate the effects of windthrow and maintain long‐lived cavity resources required by a large portion of forest wildlife. © 2013 The Wildlife Society
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".