MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

BARRED OWL HABITAT AND PREY: A REVIEW AND SYNTHESIS OF THE LITERATURE

2007· review· en· W2173875393 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kent B. Livezey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Raptor Research · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
KeywordsNest (protein structural motif)PredationHabitatDeciduousEcologyGeographyRange (aeronautics)Biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Barred Owls (Strix varia) historically inhabited the forests of eastern North America. During the last century, they expanded their range to include forests throughout the southern provinces of Canada, southeastern Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and northern California. To date, there has been no synthesis of the varied habitats or prey used by Barred Owls in their expanded range. Here I review and synthesize studies concerning habitat (N 5 114) and prey (N 5 43) of Barred Owls throughout North America north of Mexico. Barred Owls nested in wilderness areas and national parks as well as small suburban woodlots. They typically preferred old or mature, mixed deciduous/coniferous forests with fairly high canopy closure. Barred Owl nests in natural locations (N 5 341) were in cavities (74.8%), hawk nests (12.9%), tops of hollow trees (8.2%), squirrel nests (2.1%) and other locations (2.1%). Trees used by Barred Owls for nesting (N 5 169) included 22 genera, although one-fourth of all reported nest trees were Populus. Barred Owls used significantly more coniferous nest trees than deciduous nest trees in their expanded range vs. their historic range. They also nested in nest-boxes (N 5 103), in buildings (N 5 6), on nesting platforms (N 5 2), on the ground (N 5 2), in a creek bank (N 5 1), and under a bridge (N 5 1). Prey individuals (N 5 7077) obtained from pellets (N 5 5504) were mammals (74.7%), birds (8.3%), amphibians (6.4%), insects and spiders (5.6%), crayfish (3.0%), fish (1.5%), reptiles, snails and slugs, and earthworms (,1.0% each). The distribution of prey types documented by other means (e.g., observations, prey remains; N 5 1573) was significantly different, due especially to more earthworms in non-pellet samples: mammals (62.0%), birds (13.5%), insects and spiders (9.5%), amphibians (4.8%), earthworms (4.5%), fish (3.3%), reptiles (1.1%), snails, and crayfish (,1.0% each). The distributions of prey types in all samples that could be placed into winter or non-winter months (N 5 4631) differed seasonally, with more mammals in the winter diet (98.4%, vs. 58.9% in non-winter months) and more birds (11.9%), insects or spiders (11.4%), amphibians (10.7%), earthworms (2.3%), fish (2.0%), and crayfish (2.0%) in non-winter months.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations68
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Raptor ResearchSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207