Changes in the diversity structure of avian assemblages in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim To determine the major patterns of change in avian diversity structure over space and time at a local resolution and continental extent in non‐urban areas in North America. Location The contiguous United States and southern Canada. Methods We used 1673 North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) routes containing 547 terrestrial and aquatic species to estimate four diversity components: species richness, individual abundance, taxonomic distinctness and species evenness. We implemented three levels of analysis to examine changes in diversity structure on a yearly basis from 1968 to 2003: (1) a canonical analysis of discriminance, (2) a univariate analysis across BBS routes, and (3) a univariate analysis at individual BBS routes. We estimated changes in similarity in species composition over time between 470,730 BBS route pairs. We also estimated the level of human activity at BBS routes using three spatial anthropogenic databases. Results BBS routes were located in non‐urban areas in association with low nighttime light activity and moderately low human population densities. The analysis of diversity structure indicated the presence of two independent patterns: (1) a temporally consistent pattern defined by increasing species richness (12% increase from 1968 to 2003) associated with limited gains in taxonomic distinctness, and (2) an association between species abundance and evenness related to variability in abundance associated with the most abundant species. The similarity analysis indicated that BBS routes located closer to the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts of the United States experienced the strongest patterns of homogenization of species composition. Main conclusions Our results suggest that avian diversity structure has changed at the local scale in non‐urban areas in North America. However, there was no evidence for a consistent continent‐wide pattern. Instead, the evidence pointed to the presence of regional factors influencing diversity patterns. This study provides a foundation for more detailed investigations of the spatiotemporal and taxonomic details of these general patterns.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".