ArticleScientific reports2025
Effects of continuous cover management on bird communities in a beech dominated forest region of Slovenia.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Forest management can have a negative impact on the populations of some forest species. One solution has been to use management that is better at mimicking natural processes. However, the effectiveness of such systems for maintaining some taxa needs further research. We evaluated forest structure in European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) dominated stands managed with uneven-aged, continuous cover silviculture, compared to an old-growth stand, and characterized their bird communities. The managed stands represented different developmental stages of the forest, including a mature stand (before regeneration cutting), a gap-cut stand (a mature stand in the process of partial cutting), and a young stand. The old-growth stand had many features distinguishing it from the managed stands. In the managed stands, tree diameter reached a maximum of 67 cm in the gap-cut stand, and the highest mean stand volume was 459 m
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.