Seasonal changes in acoustic detection of forest birds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autonomous recording is commonly used to examine the structure of avian communities in a variety of landscapes. Many birds return to the breeding grounds in May yet acoustic surveys typically begin in June. In many species, singing activity declines through the breeding season and so detections may be lower later in the season. The aim of our study was to compare the species richness and the community composition measured early (mid-late May) and later (mid-late June) in the breeding season. We recorded the community of singing birds at 13 locations in York Region, Ontario, Canada woodlots over two days using autonomous recorders. We used spectrographic analysis to scan recordings and identify all vocalizing species. We found that species richness was significantly higher in early recordings compared to later recordings with detections of both migrants and residents displaying this trend. Most food and foraging guilds were also detected significantly less often later in the season. Despite changes in species richness, the proportion of the community represented by each foraging guild did not vary between early and late recordings. Our results suggest that acoustic recordings could be collected earlier in the breeding season, extending the survey period into May. If the primary goal of monitoring is to document species presence/absence then earlier recordings may be advantageous.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".