MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3107038546 · doi:10.1111/cobi.13676

Building a better baseline to estimate 160 years of avian population change and create historically informed conservation targets

2020· article· en· W3107038546 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tyler A. Hallman, W. Douglas Robinson, Jenna R. Curtis, Edward R. Alverson

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation Biology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyBreeding bird surveyHabitatPopulationWoodlandEcologyBaseline (sea)WildlifeBird conservationLand coverAbundance (ecology)Wildlife conservationPopulation declineConservation biologyLand useFisheryDemographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Globally, anthropogenic land-cover change has been dramatic over the last few centuries and is frequently invoked as a major cause of wildlife population declines. Baseline data currently used to assess population trends, however, began well after major changes to the landscape. In the United States and Canada, breeding bird population trends are assessed by the North American Breeding Bird Survey, which began in the 1960s. Estimates of distribution and abundance prior to major habitat alteration would add historical perspective to contemporary trends and allow for historically based conservation targets. We used a hindcasting framework to estimate change in distribution and abundance of 7 bird species in the Willamette Valley, Oregon (United States). After reconciling classification schemes of current and 1850s reconstructed land cover, we used multiscale species distribution models and hierarchical distance sampling models to predict spatially explicit densities in the modern and historical landscapes. We estimated that since the 1850s, White-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis) and Western Meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) populations, 2 species sensitive to fragmentation of oak woodlands and grasslands, declined by 93% and 97%, respectively. Five other species we estimated nearly stable or increasing populations, despite steep regional declines since the 1960s. Based on these estimates, we developed historically based conservation targets for amount of habitat, population, and density for each species. Hindcasted reconstructions provide historical perspective for assessing contemporary trends and allow for historically based conservation targets that can inform current management.

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)0.001
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.511

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConservation BiologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207