Homogenizing effects of cities on North American winter bird diversity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Urbanization is widespread throughout the United States and Canada. Studies at different scales have shown mixed consequences of urban areas for ecological communities and biodiversity. Here, we use geographic data on urban extent and survey data from the Christmas Bird Count to investigate the influence of urbanization on winter bird diversity over a continental scale. We compared the alpha (local richness) and beta diversity (turnover with distance) of 42 urban bird communities to nearby non‐urban communities. We investigated the processes underlying beta diversity between non‐urban and urban sites by comparing the frequency of occurrence in species and variability in relative abundances across sites. Alpha diversity was statistically indistinguishable between urban and non‐urban sites when controlling for latitude. Community similarity decreased less rapidly over distance in urban compared to non‐urban sites, indicating that spatial homogenization from urbanization results in lower beta diversity. Eighteen species of non‐native or native generalists occurred across all urban sites, whereas no species occurred in all non‐urban sites. Mean‐variance scaling of relative abundance shows that species in urban sites maintained similar levels of community dominance across space compared to non‐urban sites. The widespread presence of urban species is likely due to similarity in habitats among cities compared to nearby non‐urban sites. The decreased variability in relative abundance of urban species is possibly due to urban resource subsidies (e.g., bird feeders, garbage, and irrigation) and shelter (e.g., landscaping, buildings, and microclimates). The increased occurrence of widespread species in cities and less variation in relative abundances across urban sites contribute to the homogenizing effect of cities on avian communities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".