Breeding Bird Communities in Boreal Forest of Western Canada: Consequences of “Unmixing” the Mixedwoods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Silvicultural practices following clearcutting in boreal forest may encourage the creation of monospecific, single-aged stands having less vegetation heterogeneity and diversity than original stands. We conducted point counts in central Saskatchewan, Canada, 1993–1995, in pure and mixedwood stands dominated by black spruce (Picea mariana), jackpine (Pinus banksiana), trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides), or white spruce (Picea glauca). Mixedwood stands supported more individuals and more species than pure stands. Higher abundance in mixedwood stands relative to pure stands was consistent among nesting guilds and migration strategies. Rarefaction revealed similar patterns, although pure trembling aspen stands were predicted to support more species than aspen-dominated mixedwood stands. Increased avian diversity in mixedwood stands was not solely the result of the mixing of bird species associated with coniferous or deciduous forest types. Chipping Sparrow (Spizella passerina), Pine Siskin (Carduelis pinus), White-winged Crossbill (Loxia leucoptera), Red-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta canadensis), Swainson's Thrush (Catharus ustulatus), and Tennessee Warbler (Vermivora peregrina) were more abundant in mixedwood stands than pure stands. Black-throated Green Warbler (Dendroica virens), Magnolia Warbler (D. magnolia), and Blackburnian Warbler (D. fusca) were abundant in stands dominated by white spruce but were absent from jackpine or black spruce. Other species such as American Redstart (Setophaga ruticilla) and Chestnut-sided Warbler (D. pensylvanica) relied exclusively on pure trembling aspen, particularly stands with dense shrub cover. Several bird species in the boreal forest will be adversely affected by forestry practices that target mature to old aspen and white spruce mixedwoods and promote reduction in mixedwood compositions of regenerating stands.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".