Characteristics of nest trees and nest hollows used by the forest red-tailed black cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus banksii naso) in south-west Western Australia: comments on Johnstone et al. (2013)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Johnstone et al. (2013) (Pacific Conservation Biology19, 122–141) make a substantial contribution to the knowledge of the forest red-tailed black cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus banksii naso) (FRTBC), presenting data on nest hollows and nest tree attributes. They discuss the threats to the current and future breeding hollows and conclude that ‘we are facing a major crisis in southern forests’. Although there are sound reasons for concern over the conservation of cockatoo species, the imminence of a crisis is not established by the data presented. We provide spatial and management context and present data relevant to discussion of threats to FRTBC hollows in south-west Western Australia. The primary strategy for providing habitat across the publicly owned forests is reservation, which formally excludes timber harvesting from more than 50% (1.3 million ha) of the forest, informally protects a further 11%, and protects habitat trees within harvested areas. Timber harvesting in these forests generally involves partial cutting, which retains trees of a wide range of size and age classes. A realistic minimum age for trees bearing hollows used by FRTBC in the jarrah (Eucalyptus marginata) forest is ~120–150 years (trees diameters of 50–60 cm), well below the 209 years highlighted by Johnstone et al. (2013). Most nest hollows occur in intermediate-sized trees. Clustering of FRTBC nest trees was not demonstrated in their data but is worthy of further investigation. Improved estimates of nest tree availability and loss would provide perspective on the threats to FRTBC, as would knowledge of population size and age structure of the FRTBC. The protection of known nest trees and control of feral competitors, where possible, would benefit FRTBC.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".