Species colonization and extinction processes in an island bird community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Species invasion and range shifts are widely reported and facilitate novel interactions among potential competitors in plant and animal communities worldwide. However, predicting which novel interactions will result in the extirpation of subordinate competitors is challenging. Coexistence versus extinction as alternative outcomes of competition between resident and colonizing species may arise due to (1) variation in interaction strength, (2) change in other demographic drivers more influential than those linked to competition, or (3) differences in the extent to which resources are equitably partitioned between competitors, which may in turn depend on the spatial scale examined. To date, however, empirical studies suggest these factors rarely align to cause the competitive exclusion of native species. I used a combination of field experiments and demographic analyses to test the hypothesis that colonizing fox sparrows (Passerella iliaca) have caused the 0.6% per year decline of a song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) population resident on Mandarte Island, BC, Canada. Several lines of evidence indicate that interspecific competition for winter food has: a) reduced survival in juvenile song sparrows after colonization by fox sparrows in 1975, b) led to an inverse relationship between juvenile song sparrow survival and fox sparrow population size, c) excluded song sparrows from high-quality foraging sites in winter via consistent behavioural dominance by fox sparrows and complete overlap of fox and song sparrow preference for local seeds, despite d) no evidence of competition for breeding territories or nesting habitat. My results suggest that in the absence of rapid ecological or evolutionary shifts in niche dimension, song sparrows will likely be extirpated from Mandarte Is., thus demonstrating that competitive exclusion of native species can occur when interactions are strong and resources are not easily partitioned.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".