Distribution of, and microhabitat use by, woodland salamanders along forest-farmland edges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Young, Gretchen I., and Richard H. Yahner.2003.Distribution of, and microhabitat use by, woodland salamanders along forest-farmland edges.Canadian Field-Naturalist 117(1): 19-24.We examined the distribution of, and microhabitat use by, woodland salamander populations along forest-farmland edges at six sites (each 40 ha) in the Valley and Ridge Province of Pennsylvania (U.S.A.) from September to November 1995 and from March to May 1996.We found 570 salamanders of nine species, with most (90.5%)being Redback Salamanders (Plethodon cinereus).Observed versus expected numbers of salamanders of all species combined differed with distances from edges (P < 0.005); only 64 (11%) were found at the immediate edge (i.e., 5 m into the forest at the forest-farmland edge).This finding is partially related to dryer microclimatic conditions at edges.Two of the sites (BL2 and SH1) with the highest number of Redback Salamanders contained higher density of logs, soil temperatures, and percentage coverage of herbaceous growth in fall, and deeper and higher percentage coverage of leaf litter in spring compared to other sites.Woodland salamanders and other amphibians are of conservation concern because of regional population declines and range reductions.Thus, we recommend that cool, moist microclimatic conditions be preserved along forest-farmland edges (e.g., via retention of shaded logs and spring seeps) whenever possible for the conservation of woodland salamander populations.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".