Response of Forest Bird Communities to Managed Landscapes in the Acadian Forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The loss of mature forests is a known stressor of forest management on biodiversity. Mature forests provide unique habitat for forest birds. Here, we examine the capacity of mature forest stands embedded in an intensively managed landscape to provide habitat for landbird species that are associated with mature, unfragmented habitats. We carry this out by comparing bird communities in forest stands in three landscapes with a gradient of management activity. We examined community-level indicators (richness, diversity, abundance and community structure), and trait-level indicators (species groups associated with cavity nesting, mature forests, interior forests and area sensitivity). We found no obvious negative effects on bird communities, species and trait groups in forest stands in the most intensively managed landscape relative to the less intensively managed landscapes. Our ability to draw inferences about the influence of management intensity is limited due to lack of replication; however, these results do provide evidence that mature forest stands within intensively managed landscapes can provide valuable habitat to mature forest associates. There are often trade-offs between generating wood products from the forest and the provision of mature forest habitats. Research on forest birds can provide some of the necessary information for assessing the size and shape of those trade-offs and help to inform the conversation about the desired structure, function and composition of forests.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".