Biogeographic aspects of the distribution of bird species breeding in Québec’s peatlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim The state of peatlands in eastern Canada is of growing concern. This habitat is in decline due to urban sprawl, agriculture, forestry, and peat mining. Moreover, reduction and fragmentation have led to increasing isolation of remaining peatlands. We determined how bird species distribution in peatlands conforms to expectations drawn from island dynamics. We also determined the factors influencing the occurrence of 10 common peatland bird species, two of which rely mainly on peatlands for nesting in the study region. Location We sampled sixty‐three peatlands in southern Québec, Canada, within a landscape characterized by a mosaic of forest stands and farmland. Methods We sampled nesting bird populations within peatlands from 4 June to 14 July 1995, using both transect lines and fixed‐radius point counts. Each sampled peatland was characterized by area, vegetation structure (microhabitats), and isolation. We used multiple regression to test the relationship between bird species richness, peatland area, heterogeneity, microhabitat richness, and relative isolation, after correction for sampling effort. Relationships between bird species abundances and the variables the environmental variables were investigated with Canonical Correspondence Analyses. We calculated probabilities of occurrence of individual species in peatlands by logistic regression, with the same explanatory variables as mentioned previously. Results Bird species richness was mainly explained by microhabitat richness, and to a lesser extent, by sampling effort. By contrast, the occurrence of more than half of the species was mainly explained by peatland microhabitat heterogeneity. Palm warbler Dendroica palmarum (Gmelin) and upland sandpipers Bartramia longicauda (Bechstein) were the only species less frequent in small and isolated peatlands than in other peatlands. Main conclusions The results for species richness support both the habitat diversity, and passive sampling hypotheses for patchy distribution of birds. By contrast, results from individual species emphasized the difference between factors affecting total species richness and individual species distribution. The distribution of palm warbler, the only species restricted to peatlands regionally, was consistent with expectations from island dynamics.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".