MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154120487 · doi:10.1002/jwmg.336

Managing ecological traps: Logging and sapsucker nest predation by bears

2012· article· en· W2154120487 on OpenAlexaffabout
Douglas C. Tozer, Dawn M. Burke, Erica Nol, Ken A. Elliott

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Natural Resources and ForestryTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredationUrsusNest (protein structural motif)Ecological trapEcologyHabitatBiologyLoggingBeechGeographyPopulationDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We tested the equal preference ecological trap hypothesis for breeding yellow‐bellied sapsuckers ( Sphyrapicus varius ) along a time‐since‐harvest gradient (1–5 yr, 16–20 yr, 21–25 yr, and >60 yr) in selection system‐logged hardwood forests in Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario. Yellow‐bellied sapsuckers preferred 1–5 year and >60‐year‐old cuts equally and more than 16–20 year and 21–25‐year‐old cuts. More‐abundant arthropod food and/or higher‐quality sap resources may have attracted yellow‐bellied sapsuckers to 1–5 year and >60‐year‐old cuts. Only 52% of pairs raised fledglings in 1‐ to 5‐year‐old cuts during years when nest predation by American black bears ( Ursus americanus ) was common, the incidence of which was negatively related to increased availability of American beech ( Fagus grandifolia ) nuts from the previous autumn. By contrast, 88% of pairs raised fledglings in all years in >60‐year‐old cuts. One‐ to 5‐year‐old cuts were demographic sinks that represent equal‐preference ecological traps in years when nest predation by bears was common, whereas >60‐year‐old cuts were always demographic sources. High‐quality habitat cues for nesting yellow‐bellied sapsuckers appear to be retained for 1–5 years after selection system logging but fail to deliver safe nest sites. Cavities excavated in heart‐rot‐infected nest trees are least likely to be depredated because cavity walls are typically harder and deter entry by depredating bears. Retaining more potential nest trees per ha at harvest (especially American beech with heart‐rot) may increase the proportion of sapsucker nests that are excavated in bear‐resistant trees, thereby reducing nest predation and increasing fecundity. © 2012 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.495

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207