Fire and Avian Ecology in North America - Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We summarize the findings from 10 subsequent chapters that collectively review fire and avian ecology across 40 North American ecosystems.We highlight patterns and future research topics that recur among the chapters.Vegetation types with long fire-return intervals, such as boreal forests of Canada, forests at high elevations, and those in the humid Pacific Northwest, have experienced the least change in fire regimes.The spatial scale of fires has generally decreased in eastern and central North America, while it has largely increased in the western United States.Principal causes of altered fire regimes include fire suppression, cessation of ignitions by American Indians, livestock grazing, invasion by exotic plants, and climate change.Each chapter compiles the responses of birds to fi re in a specifi c region.We condensed these responses (203 species) into a summary table that reveals some interesting patterns, although it does not distinguish among fire regimes or time since fire.Aerial, ground, and bark insectivores clearly favored recently burned habitats, whereas foliage gleaners preferred unburned habitats.Species with closed nests (i.e., cavity nesters) responded more favorably to newly burned habitats than species with open-cup nests, and those nesting in the ground and canopy layers generally favored burned habitats compared to shrub nesters.Future directions for research suggested by authors of individual chapters fell into two broad groups, which we characterized as habitat-centered questions (e.g., How does mechanical thinning affect habitat?) and bird-centered questions (e.g., How does fire affect nest survival?).
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".