Neither Scale of Response Nor Threshold in Habitat Availability Is Conserved Across Species of Forest-Dwelling Songbirds Responding to Habitat Loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thresholds can be an effective tool in conservation planning, as they can form a defensible target for habitat conservation or restoration. Generalized thresholds must be used with caution, however, as threshold responses may vary with species and spatial scale. The objectives of this study were to identify the scales at which forest-dwelling birds respond to both habitat availability and critical thresholds in forest cover associated with their occurrence, and to assess if life history traits relate to either scale of response or critical threshold. Using point count data from the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas, I generated concentric buffers ranging from 100 m to 10 km radius around a random subset of point counts and described forest cover and species occurrence within each buffer. I assessed the likelihood of occurrence of each species at each scale of analysis using logistic regression and identified forest cover thresholds below which the occurrence of each species becomes unlikely using fitted regression curves and ROC plots. Species varied in their response to both landscape scale and forest cover, based on relative growth rate, clutch size, and site fidelity. The mean response to forest cover was 30.8%, with landscape scale ranging from 200 m to 9 km. Despite this range, pragmatic approaches to conservation planning are still possible.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".