MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2744366492 · doi:10.1111/ddi.12601

The diversity, distribution and conservation status of the tree‐cavity‐nesting birds of the world

2017· article· en· W2744366492 on OpenAlexaff
Yntze van der Hoek, Gabriel Gaona, Kathy Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueDiversity and Distributions · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndangered speciesFacultativeNest (protein structural motif)ExcavatorEcologyObligateSpecies richnessGeographyConservation statusBiologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aim Globally, many bird species nest in tree cavities that are either excavated or formed through decay or damage processes. We assembled an overview of all tree‐cavity nesters (excavators and non‐excavators) in the world, analysed their geographic distribution and listed the conservation status of all species. Location This is a global analysis of species from every continent except for Antarctica where the lack of trees precludes the occurrence of this group. Methods We reviewed the online version of the Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive, http://www.hbw.com/ , and primary literature for species known to nest in tree cavities, with tree cavities defined as holes that a bird can enter such that it is not visible from the outside. We classified species by nester type (excavator or non‐excavator, and obligate or facultative where possible), conservation threat status and zoogeographic region, and tested for statistical differences in species distributions across realms using chi‐square tests. Results At least 1878 species (18.1% of all bird species in the world) nest in tree cavities, of which we considered 355 to be primary excavators, 126 facultative excavators and 1357 non‐excavators (we were unable to classify nesting type for 40 species). At least 338 species use cavities created by woodpeckers (Picidae), excluding reuse by woodpeckers themselves. About 13% (249 species) of tree‐cavity nesters experience major threats (i.e., status of vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered). The highest richness of tree‐cavity nesters is found in the Neotropical (678 species) and Oriental (453) regions, and the highest proportion of threatened species in Australasia (17%). Main conclusion Maintenance of a continual supply of cavities, a process in which woodpeckers and the processes of decay play critical roles, is a global conservation priority as tree cavities provide important nesting sites for many bird species.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations159
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiversity and DistributionsSame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207