Grassland bird population declines at three Breeding Bird Survey spatial scales in contrast to a large native prairie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Grassland biomes in North America are threatened by agricultural intensification with implications for grassland‐associated bird populations via habitat loss, alteration, pesticide use, and declining landscape heterogeneity. Despite decades of conservation concern, steep declines of grassland birds continue. Key to optimizing conservation effort is understanding how land‐use practices, such as agriculture, across the annual cycle affect population status. Determining the relative influence of impacts on grassland bird declines is difficult given that the most robust estimate of trends, the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), is conducted throughout agriculturally dominated regions. Our goal was to explore whether agriculture during the breeding season is a major driver of grassland bird declines, by evaluating population trends in regions with different amounts of agricultural development. We derived trends for 16 bird species spanning 23 years (1994–2016) at a large (459 km 2 ), native prairie site, Suffield National Wildlife Area (SNWA) in Alberta, Canada. We compared those trends with the BBS across three spatial scales, a regional monitoring scheme with higher than average native grass cover (Grassland Bird Monitoring [GBM]), Bird Conservation Region 11 Canada (Canada), and all of Bird Conservation Region 11 (BCR 11). Trends measured as annual percent change and credible interval varied greatly among species and survey strata. Across all species, declines were greatest for Canada (−1.3%, CI: −2.8, 0.0) and BCR 11 (−1.9%, CI: −3.2, −0.6). This contrasts with positive trends for GBM routes (1.0%, CI: −0.4, 2.3) and the SNWA data (1.7%, CI: 0.3, 3.3). Six of 16 species at SNWA were increasing with one decreasing. Five species increased at GBM and four declined. Canada had 10 species declines and 3 increases and BCR 11 had 10 declines and no increases. None of the six grassland obligate species declined at SNWA, two declined at GBM, and all six declined over the two larger BBS strata. Our results showing fewer negative population trends at a large native grassland site compared with BBS at three spatial scales across the North American prairies support the prediction that agricultural intensification on breeding grounds may be driving population declines and protection of native grasslands is a key component of grassland bird conservation efforts.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".