Over-winter ecology and relative density of Canada Warbler <i>Cardellina canadensis</i> in Colombia: the basis for defining conservation priorities for a sharply declining long-distance migrant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The Canada Warbler Cardellina canadensis is a steeply declining Neotropical migratory bird and > 50% of its non-breeding range is within the Colombian Andes. Despite being an abundant migrant in Andean forests, the species’ elevational distribution and non-breeding ecology have yet to be studied, thereby precluding the design of effective conservation actions. During four non-breeding periods (2012–2016), we surveyed Colombia’s three Andean ranges, carrying out passive 5-minute point counts between 700 and 3,150 m asl in five habitats (mature forest, secondary growth, forest edges/riparian forest, shade coffee, sun coffee), recording the perpendicular distance, sex, foraging height, and association with mixed species flocks of Canada Warbler. Habitat variables were recorded at each point. Based on 819 passive point counts, Canada Warblers occupied elevations between 750 and 2,300 m, being more abundant between 1,000 and 2,200 m. Relative densities were higher in mature forest compared to shade coffee and secondary forest, and accordingly abundance increased with canopy height. There was no evidence for a difference in elevation or habitat use by males and females. Within forests, birds foraged at mid-levels, 5–15 m above the ground, and the probability of Canada Warblers occurring in mixed species flocks increased with elevation. Models of variation in relative density throughout the Eastern Andes showed a positive relation with cloud cover and above-ground forest biomass, implying a preference for humid, forested regions. Of the areas in the Eastern Andes with high predicted relative density, ∼ 14% overlapped with protected areas and we identify priority areas where protective measures could benefit the conservation status of the species. For maximum effectiveness, conservation actions should focus on protecting forest fragments and initiating reforestation projects at mid-elevations (1,000–2,200 m), as well as supporting agroforestry practices in humid regions of the Colombian Andes.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".