Early breeders choose differently – Refining measures of habitat quality for the yellow-bellied sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius), a keystone species in the mixedwood boreal forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the prevalent use of nest-site selection studies to define habitat quality for birds, many studies relying on use-availability analysis have found poor correlations between selected vegetation and reproductive success. Using 3 years of data from northeastern British Columbia (2007-2009), we determined timing of breeding from hatching dates and contrasted the nest-site selection of earlier (n = 22) with later-nesting pairs (n = 36) of yellow-bellied sapsuckers (Sphyrapicus varius), because early breeders were expected to be more reproductively successful. We then compared these choices with those identified from use-availability analysis, and determined whether reproductive performance (fledgling production) was related to selected vegetation. None of the vegetation characteristics selected for nest sites from available vegetation predicted reproductive performance. Earlier-nesting pairs fledged more young on average than later breeders (4.41, SE = 0.18 versus 3.92, SE = 0.16), and chose less decayed aspen trees for nesting, that were surrounded on average by 3 times the number of food trees (paper birch, Betula papyrifera). Potential preference for birch trees was masked in the use-availability analysis, because the selection rate was dominated by the choices of the larger number of later-nesting pairs. Similarly, the majority (69%) of nest cavity entrances faced south, but earlier breeding pairs excavated northward-oriented cavities more frequently than did later breeding pairs, which strongly predicted their higher fledgling production. To our knowledge, our study is the first to compare the choices of early versus later breeders to test the efficacy of use-availability studies in defining habitat quality. We found that use-availability analysis was inadequate for determining vegetation characteristics related to reproductive performance. In contrast, measuring the distinct preferences of earlier breeders resulted in an improved ability to measure habitat quality and explain the spatial distribution of yellow-bellied sapsuckers, a keystone species of the mixedwood boreal forest.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".