SHORT-TERM EFFECTS OF TIMBER HARVEST ON ABUNDANCE, TERRITORY CHARACTERISTICS, AND PAIRING SUCCESS OF OVENBIRDS IN RIPARIAN BUFFER STRIPS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In managed forests, riparian buffer strips typically are maintained to protect water quality. If properly designed, buffer strips also may act as wildlife reserves. However, forest managers have lacked the information to develop standards for buffer strips to maximize benefits for wildlife species. We assessed the conservation potential of 20-, 100-, and 200-m wide buffers for an area-sensitive songbird in boreal mixed-wood forest in Alberta. We measured abundance, territory characteristics, and pairing success of Ovenbirds (Seiurus aurocapillus) at treatment and control lakes one year before and after upland timber harvest. After harvest, Ovenbirds were absent from 20-m buffer strips. Harvesting did not significantly influence abundance or territory size in 100-m or 200-m buffers, although territories generally became narrower. Postharvest territory position did not change in 200-m buffers, but territories in 100-m strips shifted lakeward and included more habitat adjacent to the riparian edge than before harvest. Despite this shift in territory position, males that occupied 100-m strips successfully attracted mates. High availability of regional forest cover may have muted the more pronounced effects of habitat alteration observed in other studies. Our research is among the first to evaluate individual behavioral responses to the creation of forest edges. Our data indicate that 20-m buffer strips do not support breeding Ovenbirds, whereas 100- and 200-m buffers retain Ovenbirds during the year following harvest. Long-term harvest effects may differ from those we monitored and require study, particularly as timber extraction increases in the boreal mixed-wood ecoregion.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".