MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2183122895 · doi:10.3996/022015-jfwm-021

Transforming Abandoned Farm Fields to Conifer Plantations Reduces Ruffed Grouse Density

2015· article· en· W2183122895 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christian Roy, Marc J. Mazerolle, Louis Imbeau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish and Wildlife Management · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité du Québec à RimouskiUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-TémiscamingueUniversité du Québec à MontréalNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrouseDeciduousHabitatEcologyGeographyWildlifeForestryAgroforestryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Natural forests likely will be unable to fulfill society’s needs sustainably for wood fiber in the near future. In an attempt to meet increasing demands while protecting intact forests, producers have increasingly considered alternative sources of timber, such as intensively managed plantations. In regions that are economically dependent on forest harvesting, abandoned farm fields are often targeted for conversion to intensive coniferous plantations. These sites are generally in an early successional stage that is dominated by deciduous stands, which provide an important habitat type for several game species, including ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus). Therefore, conversion could represent a loss of habitat for this species and several others that are associated with early successional deciduous stages. We conducted grouse drumming surveys in northwestern Quebec, Canada to evaluate the effects of transforming old fields into conifer plantations on ruffed grouse by comparing densities between two habitat types: abandoned farm fields (n = 22) and old fields converted to conifer plantations (n = 19). To correct any audibility bias between habitat types, we located all drumming males that were heard at each site. We then analyzed the number of individuals that were detected in the sites with repeated count models. Our results show that overall drumming males avoided plantations. Overhead cover increased drumming male densities in both habitat types, whereas lateral cover increased drumming grouse densities only in plantations. The density of deciduous stems and fruit-bearing stems also had a tendency to increase drumming male densities, but their effects were marginal. Most ruffed grouse in abandoned farm fields used piles of woody debris on the ground as drumming structures rather than large logs or rock outcrops. Our results suggest that plantations do not have the vegetative cover and quantity of food stems necessary to support high ruffed grouse densities during the drumming season and that conversion of abandoned farm fields to coniferous plantations may exert negative cascading effects for reproduction and population growth.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.516
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish and Wildlife ManagementSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207