MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965045073 · doi:10.3133/pp1842a

The effects of management practices on grassland birds — An introduction to North American grasslands and the practices used to manage grasslands and grassland birds

2019· article· en· W2965045073 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jill A. Shaffer, John P. DeLong

Bibliographic record

VenueUSGS professional paper · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrasslandWoodlandGeographyForbVegetation (pathology)Dominance (genetics)EcologyPlant communityWetlandHerbaceous plantStipaHabitatAgroforestryEcological successionEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The Great Plains of North America is defined as the land mass that encompasses the entire central portion of the North American continent that, at the time of European settlement, was an unbroken expanse of primarily herbaceous vegetation. The Great Plains extend from central Saskatchewan and Alberta to central Mexico and from Indiana to the Rocky Mountains. The expanses of herbaceous vegetation are often referred to as native prairie or native grasslands. Native grasslands share the characteristics of a general uniformity in vegetation structure, dominance by grasses and forbs, a near absence of trees and shrubs, annual precipitation ranging from 25 to 100 centimeters, extreme intra-annual fluctuations in temperature and precipitation, and a flat to rolling topography over which fires can spread. To the west of the Great Plains lie the sagebrush communities of the Great Basin, which extend from British Columbia and Saskatchewan to northern Arizona and New Mexico and from the eastern slopes of the Sierra Nevada and Cascade mountain ranges to western South Dakota. Sagebrush communities share similar characteristics to native grasslands, but their location east of the Rocky Mountains creates a more moderating influence from prevailing westerly winds that affect timing of peak precipitation and growth form of dominant vegetation. Native grasslands and sagebrush communities harbor a diverse array of grassland, wetland, and woodland plant and animal communities that are uniquely adapted to the natural forces of the Great Plains and Great Basin, namely the interactive forces of climate, fire, and grazing. The arrival of European settlers to North America brought profound change to native grassland and sagebrush communities, including the establishment of permanent towns and cities, the proliferation of cropland-based agricultural systems, and the suppression of wildfires. The near extirpation of bison by the 1860s paved the way for dramatic changes in the dominant grazers and a shift in the disturbance patterns that historically influenced vegetation structure. The greatest threat to native grasslands and sagebrush communities in modern times is their loss due to conversion to rowcrop agriculture and to urbanization. Concomitant with habitat loss is a precipitous decline in populations of bird species that evolved with, and are uniquely adapted to, the native grassland and sagebrush habitats. Avian population trends are linked strongly to agricultural land use. Besides outright loss of suitable breeding habitat, agricultural practices affect birds through factors such as pesticide exposure, habitat fragmentation, shifts in predator community composition, and occurrence of brood parasites. Bird populations face other stressors, such as loss of habitat to and behavioral avoidance of urbanized areas, roads, and infrastructure associated with energy production. Despite the many anthropogenic changes to North American grassland and sagebrush communities, some bird species are adaptable and opportunistic in their habitat selection and now utilize one or more human-created habitats. Human-created habitats include pastures, hayfields, agricultural terraces, crop buffer strips, field borders, grassed waterways, fencerows, road rights-of-way, airports, reclaimed coal mines, and planted wildlife cover. Fields of seeded grasslands enrolled in Federal long-term set-aside programs, such as the Conservation Reserve Program in the United States and the Permanent Cover Program in Canada, provide important nesting habitat for grassland bird species. The array of habitats used by birds makes habitat and avian management a complex undertaking, and the scale (for example, local, regional, international) at which management actions can be implemented are such that a universal approach to managing grasslands for the conservation of the entire suite of bird species does not exist. Experienced land managers recognize that it is impossible to manage for all bird species simultaneously, and thus, prioritization is necessary towards those habitats or bird species that the manager or management agency ranks highest for a specific region or management unit. The primary tools available for management are burning, grazing, mowing, herbicide application, and idling, but before choosing a particular practice, a manager will want to consider issues of seasonality, intensity, and frequency. Despite the thousands of studies that are cited in this compendium, much remains unknown about the effects of management practices on bird species. The series of species accounts in this compendium review the current state of knowledge regarding management of grassland and sagebrush bird species and summarize information on the effects of management practices on individual species. The accounts do not give definitive statements on the effects of management practices for any particular species, primarily because there are very few replicated studies in which identical management practices have been applied in the same geographical area with consistent results, which are elements necessary to provide concrete recommendations for the management of a particular species in a particular area. Documentation of the effects of management treatments on individual species through statistically sound methods that incorporate multiple years and locations will further scientists’ and land managers’ knowledge far more than 1–2-year studies that are limited in scope as well as time, but studies of that scope and breadth are rare.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.650

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUSGS professional paperSame topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207