MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3208373983 · doi:10.1111/1365-2656.13626

Woodpeckers and other excavators maintain the diversity of cavity‐nesting vertebrates

2021· article· en· W3208373983 on OpenAlexafffundabout
M. Kurtis Trzcinski, Kristina L. Cockle, Andrea R. Norris, Karen L. Wiebe, Kathy Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Ecology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
KeywordsNesting (process)ExcavatorDiversity (politics)EcologyGeographyBiologyZoologyEngineeringAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Woodpeckers and other excavators create most of the holes used by secondary cavity nesters (SCNs) in North American temperate mixedwood forests, but the degree to which excavators release SCNs from nest-site limitation is debated. Our goal was to quantify how excavators maintain the diversity and abundance of secondary cavity nesters in a temperate forest through the creation of tree cavities. We examined the short- and long-term (legacy) effects of excavators (principally woodpeckers, but also red-breasted nuthatches and black-capped chickadees) on forest biodiversity using longitudinal monitoring data (1,732 nest cavities, 25 sites, 16 years) in British Columbia, Canada. Sites with higher densities of excavator nests had more cavities available, higher species richness of SCNs and higher nest density of SCNs, indicating the importance of a standing stock of cavities. Years with higher nesting densities of excavators were followed by years with higher SCN diversity, indicating that the creation of nesting opportunities through fresh excavation releases SCNs from community-wide nest-site limitation. We also show that excavators leave a 'legacy' of biodiversity (species richness and abundance) at a site by accumulating cavities at rates faster than they become unusable by decay or destruction. By quantifying site-level effects of cavity excavation on the SCN community, our study highlights the key role of excavators as ecosystem engineers that maintain forest wildlife biodiversity.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.835

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.220
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations45
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal EcologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207