MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Temporal turnover of common species in avian assemblages in North America

2005· article· en· W2111225735 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Frank A. La Sorte, William J. Boecklen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biogeography · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpecies richnessCommon speciesEcologyBiologyColonizationSpecies diversityBeta diversityRare speciesHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aim We examine patterns of temporal turnover of common species in avian assemblages in North America to test the hypothesis that changes in avian diversity structure observed in these assemblages were associated with the colonization of common species. Location The contiguous United States and southern Canada. Methods We measured temporal turnover from 1968 to 2003 for 547 avian species at 1673 North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) routes. We used the Euclidian distance between expected and observed presence/absence vectors and randomization tests to place species into two categories, common and not‐common, and into three categories for common species: (1) always common, (2) common and colonizing, and (3) common and extirpated. We used these categories to identify species experiencing extreme colonization and extirpation events and to examine changes in species composition at BBS routes. We also determined how these patterns were associated with changes in species richness and changes in similarity in species composition. Results Nine of the 547 species represented outliers, where the number of BBS routes colonized greatly exceeded the number extirpated; no species showed extreme values for extirpation. The nine species colonized BBS routes primarily in the upper Midwest and north‐eastern United States. Presence of the nine species at BBS routes was correlated with increasing net gain in common species (difference between common colonized and common extirpated), higher levels of species richness and increasing species richness over time, more similar species compositions and increasing similarity over time, and a greater prevalence of common species over not‐common species. The literature indicates that all nine species experienced some form of geographical range expansion during the time of the survey involving four elements: (1) introduction and invasion; (2) the ability to use human‐altered environments, including habitats associated with agricultural, suburban, or urban areas; (3) intensive management activities, including habitat improvements and reintroductions and (4) the ability to use habitats formed through forest regeneration. These factors in combination point to anthropogenic activities and related land use histories as the primary drivers of change. One of the nine species colonized regions well outside its historic geographical range and the remaining eight species were native within the regions they colonized. Main conclusions Our results suggest that a combination of anthropogenic activities promoted, within certain regions of North America, the geographical expansion of a limited number of common species that were native to those regions. These colonization events were correlated with changes in diversity structure, implying that large‐scale diversity patterns were being influenced by anthropogenic activities. These changes can be characterized primarily by gains in species richness, an increased prevalence of common species, and more similar species compositions. Thus, using simple large‐scale measures of diversity could be problematic if recent biogeographical patterns of species diversity are not considered. Specifically, using species richness or an indicator species to assess diversity could bias assessments towards common species whose populations have recently benefited through anthropogenic activities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations52
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of BiogeographySame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207