MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3020383728 · doi:10.7717/peerj.8898

Yearling proportion correlates with habitat structure in a boreal forest landbird community

2020· article· en· W3020383728 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter Pyle, Kenneth R. Foster, Christine M. Godwin, Danielle R. Kaschube, James F. Saracco

Bibliographic record

VenuePeerJ · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsCumulative Environmental Management Association
FundersSyncrudeCanadian Natural Resources LimitedCenovus Energy
KeywordsHabitatEcologyNettingBiologyRange (aeronautics)Vegetation (pathology)TaigaGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Landbird vital rates, such as productivity and adult survivorship, can be estimated by modeling mist-netting capture data. The proportion in which an adult breeding bird is 1 year of age (a "yearling"), however, has been studied only minimally in a few landbird species. Here we relate yearling proportion to habitat-structure covariates, including reclamation age, in a boreal forest landbird community. Data were collected at 35 constant-effort mist-netting stations over a 6-year period, and consisted of 12,714 captures of adults, of 29 landbird species, including 4,943 captures of yearlings. Accuracy of age determination (yearling or older) was assessed based on recapture data and error rates were estimated at a mean of 8.1% (range 0.0-19.4%) among the 29 species, with 20 species showing age-error rates <10%. The estimated mean yearling proportion was 0.407, ranging from 0.178 to 0.613 among species. Remote-sensed Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI), a measure of habitat greenness, was positively correlated with age since reclamation up to 20 years, at which time it became comparable to that of natural stations. The probability of capturing a yearling for species associated with mature forest was lower at stations with higher EVI and the opposite was the case for species favoring successional habitats. These results suggest that yearling birds are being excluded from preferred breeding habitats by older birds through despotism and/or that yearlings are simply selecting poorer habitat due to lack of breeding experience or other factors. This dynamic appears to be operating in multiple species within this forest landbird community. Captured yearlings may also be "floaters", or non-breeding individuals not holding territories. However, presuming that yearlings show lower reproductive success whether floating or not, our results suggest that stations with high yearling proportions could be located within sink as opposed to source habitats. Overall, we infer that yearling proportion may become an important vital-rate measure of habitat quality and reclamation efforts, when combined with indices of population size, productivity, reproductive condition and survivorship.

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)0.000
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeerJSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207