Reclamation and habitat‐disturbance effects on landbird abundance and productivity indices in the oil sands region of northeastern Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The pace and scale of reclamation in Alberta's oil sands region are increasing, and techniques to measure and validate the ecological function of developing habitats are needed. In Alberta, achievement of equivalent land capability to that present before disturbance is a regulatory requirement of reclamation certification. We compared landbird abundance and productivity indices from mist‐netting data collected in 2011–2013 using the Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) protocol with local habitat covariates at 35 monitoring stations in natural, reclaimed, and disturbed habitats. Principal component analysis of habitat covariates explained 83% of the variation in 20 habitat‐structure variables. We found significant relationships between habitat covariates and captures of adult birds, young birds, and/or the probability of capturing a young bird (productivity) for 12 landbird species; in some cases, capture responses contrasted with productivity responses to habitat variables. Responses to reclamation age were as expected, given habitat preferences of our target species. Positive responses to reclamation age from obligate forest‐dwelling species take more years to become evident than those for species preferring successional‐stage habitats, while one species that prefers open, grassland habitats appeared to decline with reclamation age, presumably due to habitat succession. Application of the MAPS protocol as a tool to evaluate and track the performance of reclaimed and disturbed habitats is demonstrated, with landbird abundance and productivity indices in natural habitats being useful indicators of equivalent land capability.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".