Short-Term Effects of Fire on Breeding Birds in Southern Appalachian Upland Forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated how variation in fire severity (control or no fire; low, medium, and high severity fires) and interval (1–2 years vs. 3–6 years after fires) affected habitat and avian abundance, species diversity, richness, and evenness in the southern Appalachian Mountains. Fire severity and interval had significant implications for both habitat and avian communities. Species richness within 2 years of fires was on average 26% higher in areas receiving medium and high severity treatments than in unburned control units. Species diversity and species richness were markedly greater 3–6 years after fires within high severity treatments (12 and 44%, respectively), compared to unburned controls. Relative abundance and species evenness did not vary with fire severity or time since fire. The short-term effects of low severity fires, or high severity fires with short rotation periods (≤2 years) may have limited positive effects on avian communities. Facilitation of disturbance regimes including mid to high severity fires, which foster uneven-aged forests, can be an effective conservation tool for restoring avian communities.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".