Additive and interactive cumulative effects on boreal landbirds: winners and losers in a multi‐stressor landscape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stressors created by multiple resource industries can result in cumulative effects over time and space. Many studies have evaluated single stressors and assumed that cumulative effects can be understood by adding stressors together. However, there is growing evidence that interactive effects are important in structuring biological communities. We evaluated whether the effects of multiple stressors in the boreal forest (linear features, energy, forestry) combine additively or interactively by testing a candidate model set of 12 cumulative effects models of abundance for 27 landbird species. We fitted paired additive and interactive Generalized Additive Models and examined model predictions in the Athabasca Oil Sands Area of Alberta, Canada, and a theoretical no-disturbance version of the study area. Of the 27 species examined, an additive disturbance model was the best for nine species, while an interactive disturbance model was the best for 11 species. In the current study area, disturbance models predicted strong increases in abundance for species associated with deciduous forest and open habitats (winning species) and moderate decreases for species associated with conifer forest (losing species). We found a 15% change in landbird community composition between the current study area, with 8.4% disturbance, and the theoretical no-disturbance study area. Complex synergistic and antagonistic interactions among stressors were observed for 39% of landbird species, with the majority of interactions observed being synergistic. Stressors with relatively small disturbance areas, such as narrow linear disturbances, frequently interacted with other stressors to affect species' responses, and energy sector stressors often had additive or interactive effects with forestry stressors. Interactive cumulative effects from multiple sectors will make it increasingly difficult for industry and land managers to manage impacts unless interactions among stressors are incorporated into cumulative effects assessments and regional land use planning processes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".