Pacific Northwest birds have shifted their abundances upslope in response to 30 years of warming temperatures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mountain species are predicted to respond to warming temperatures by moving to higher elevations that remain relatively cool. Species can track warming by shifting their entire distributions upwards (the "escalator to extinction" hypothesis) or by increasing in abundance in the upper portion of their elevational range while maintaining stable elevational limits (the "upslope lean" hypothesis). Alternatively, mountain species may not change their abundance or distribution despite climate change (the "persist-in-place" hypothesis). Here we evaluate these three contrasting hypotheses by analyzing responses of breeding forest bird species to three decades of warming in southwestern British Columbia, Canada. Consistent with the upslope lean hypothesis, species' optimum elevations (elevations of highest abundance) increased by an average of 126 m, approximately tracking upslope movements in temperature isotherms. In contrast, species' elevational range limits were stable on average, contra the escalator to extinction hypothesis. Many individual species had stable distributions and abundances, and species with upslope abundance increases typically maintained stable abundances within the lower elevation portions of their range. Taken together, most species in our study region appear to be responding neutrally or favorably to warming temperatures. Nevertheless, one mountain species, the Canada Jay, Canada's national bird, is declining and vulnerable to the escalator to extinction within our study region. Overall, we emphasize the importance of empirical data-and abundance data in particular-when evaluating mountain species' vulnerability to climate change.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".