Home range and habitat use by Magellanic Woodpeckers in an old-growth forest of Patagonia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Magellanic Woodpecker (Campephilus magellanicus (King, 1827)) is a large, vulnerable species exhibiting geographic range retraction. We analyzed the size and location of forest areas used by these woodpeckers in consecutive years (2010–2012), as related to habitat characteristics, in an old-growth lenga (Nothofagus pumilio (Poepp et Endl.) Krasser) forest of Argentine Patagonia. Woodpeckers were tracked during the postbreeding season, and forest features were evaluated in plots within territories. Woodpecker density was 1.01 territories·100 ha–1. The resident population apparently saturates the forest available in the study site; hence, territorial disputes were frequent between all pairs of adjacent families. Families used 39.3 ± 13.6 ha during the postreproductive season and 63.2 ± 12.3 ha across the three seasons, with interannual variability in both location and size of the areas used. Abundances of large live trees and of coarse woody debris were correlated with smaller, presumably high-quality, home ranges. Other forest attributes that are often important in woodpecker habitat (e.g., snag density) had little relationship with home-range size, but the high availability of resources in old-growth forests may mask their potential importance in a poorer quality habitat. Our results show that Magellanic Woodpecker family groups require a minimum of 100 ha in old-growth forest habitat; thus, forest patches in less favourable forest conditions (e.g., younger, managed, fragmented, mixed forests) should probably be much larger to support a resident pair or family. This habitat size would be a provisional minimum threshold to be used in management decisions involving the forests of Patagonia until alternative figures are derived from studies across multiple forest types.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".