MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164802398 · doi:10.1002/wsb.1178

Conservation of Sage‐grouse Critical Habitat and Implications for Prairie Songbirds

2021· article· en· W3164802398 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Phillip Kelsey Rose, R. Mark Brigham, Stephen K. Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Society Bulletin · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsCanadian Forest ServiceUniversity of Regina
FundersU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceMitacs
KeywordsEcologyHabitatAbundance (ecology)GrouseGeographyGrasslandVegetation (pathology)Range (aeronautics)Generalist and specialist speciesShrubWildlife conservationBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT A popular approach for conserving multiple organisms in a given region is to identify one or more umbrella species. Identifying and managing for species that have a high degree of overlap in their habitat requirements with a broader suite of organisms is expected to enhance the effectiveness of conservation actions when resources are limited. The greater sage‐grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ) has received considerable attention as a potential umbrella species for shrub‐steppe flora and fauna in the core of its range. However, the extent to which conserving sage‐grouse habitat benefits mixed‐grass prairie songbirds in the northern portion of its range is unclear. We compared abundance of grassland songbirds within grasslands designated as sage‐grouse critical habitat by the Canadian federal government, and within a 1.6‐km buffer of adjacent habitat in southwestern Saskatchewan, Canada in 2016 and 2017. We also quantified relationships between bird abundance and gradients of vegetation structure. Lark bunting ( Calamospiza melanocorys ) abundance was 3 times greater within sage‐grouse critical habitat, whereas chestnut‐collared longspur ( Calcarius ornatus ), Baird's sparrow ( Centronyx bairdii ), and Sprague's pipit ( Anthus spragueii ) abundance was 1.6–1.8 times greater outside of these areas. The abundance of grassland specialists was negatively associated with total shrub and silver sagebrush ( Artemisia cana ) cover, both of which characterize sage‐grouse critical habitat in Canada at both landscape and local scales. Furthermore, characteristics of vegetation structure associated with grassland generalists overlapped with characteristics of vegetation structure that defined greater sage‐grouse critical habitat. Conservation of greater sage‐grouse critical habitat in Canada is likely to have a positive influence on shrub‐dependent or shrub‐tolerant species, such as lark bunting. The conservation of open, native grasslands within greater sage‐grouse critical habitat could benefit grassland specialists, however, any changes in the current management that increases the cover of exotic species, silver sagebrush, and other shrubs will negatively affect grassland specialists. We recommend that protection and management activities be targeted towards greater sage‐grouse, Sprague's pipit, and chestnut‐collared longspur to maximize the conservation of mixed‐grass prairie songbirds and minimize the number of focal umbrella species required. © 2021 The Wildlife Society.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.262
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWildlife Society BulletinSame topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207