Qualitative synthesis of temperate bat responses to silvicultural treatments—where do we go from here?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Most bat species depend on forests for roosting, foraging, and drinking during part or all of their life cycles. Many of the world’s forests are managed using a variety of silvicultural treatments and, over the past 40 years, researchers have studied the responses of bats to these treatments. I carried out a qualitative synthesis of the literature on roosting and foraging responses of temperate insectivorous bats to silvicultural treatments at the stand level to determine what treatments may be most compatible with conservation and to guide future research. Eighty-eight studies from Canada, the United States, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, met review criteria. Based on my results, foraging and commuting habitat use was less affected by changes in forest structure and composition than roost habitat use. Mid-rotation treatments that reduce clutter while retaining overstory structure (e.g., thinning and fire) had more neutral and positive effects than treatments that removed all or most of the overstory. Based on an examination of the methods and assumptions of the 88 studies included in this review, I conclude that future studies should: 1) strive to account for treatment effects on detection probability of bats when using acoustic detectors; 2) examine responses of bats to silvicultural treatments outside the maternity season; 3) examine demographic and physiological responses to silvicultural treatments in addition to habitat use to fully understand the effects of these treatments on bat populations; and 4) use stand-level data to model forest management effects across large landscapes and over long time periods.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".