DO OVENBIRDS (SEIURUS AUROCAPILLUS) AVOID BOREAL FOREST EDGES? A SPATIOTEMPORAL ANALYSIS IN AN AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Previous studies suggest that Ovenbirds (Seiurus aurocapillus) are area sensitive and apparently avoid forest edges. In 1999 and 2000, we used radiotelemetry to investigate how breeding male Ovenbirds respond to forest edges. Twenty-one males with home ranges abutting edges of seven forest fragments surrounded by agriculture were tracked for an average of two weeks. We found that sightings of males were situated 8 ± 10 m closer to edges than random locations within each home range. However, the mean time of day for edge sightings (1139 hours, 95% CI = 1052–1227 hours) occurred significantly later than the mean for sightings in the interior of forest fragments (0936 hours, 95% CI = 0856–1016 hours). That indicates that previous studies focusing on morning singing locations to delineate home-range use have likely underestimated use of edges by birds. Habitat characteristics also varied in relation to edges. Forest canopy was lower, shrubs were denser, leaf-litter thicker, and soils dryer near edges than in the portion of home ranges facing the interior of forest fragments. Arthropod biomass varied little in relation to edges, except biomass of larvae, which was greatest at edges. Boreal forest edges abutting agricultural fields do not appear to reduce habitat use or quality for breeding male Ovenbirds, and so we suggest that the generalized association between area sensitivity and edge avoidance for Ovenbirds in forest fragments be reassessed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".