↓ Skip to main content

Logging impacts on avian species richness and composition differ across latitudes and foraging and breeding habitat preferences

Overview of attention for article published in Biological Reviews, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Logging impacts on avian species richness and composition differ across latitudes and foraging and breeding habitat preferences
Published in
Biological Reviews, October 2016
DOI 10.1111/brv.12300
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joseph A. LaManna, Thomas E. Martin

Abstract

Understanding the causes underlying changes in species diversity is a fundamental pursuit of ecology. Animal species richness and composition often change with decreased forest structural complexity associated with logging. Yet differences in latitude and forest type may strongly influence how species diversity responds to logging. We performed a meta-analysis of logging effects on local species richness and composition of birds across the world and assessed responses by different guilds (nesting strata, foraging strata, diet, and body size). This approach allowed identification of species attributes that might underlie responses to this anthropogenic disturbance. We only examined studies that allowed forests to regrow naturally following logging, and accounted for logging intensity, spatial extent, successional regrowth after logging, and the change in species composition expected due to random assembly from regional species pools. Selective logging in the tropics and clearcut logging in temperate latitudes caused loss of species from nearly all forest strata (ground to canopy), leading to substantial declines in species richness (up to 27% of species). Few species were lost or gained following any intensity of logging in lower-latitude temperate forests, but the relative abundances of these species changed substantially. Selective logging at higher-temperate latitudes generally replaced late-successional specialists with early-successional specialists, leading to no net changes in species richness but large changes in species composition. Removing less basal area during logging mitigated the loss of avian species from all forests and, in some cases, increased diversity in temperate forests. This meta-analysis provides insights into the important role of habitat specialization in determining differential responses of animal communities to logging across tropical and temperate latitudes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 113 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 23%
Student > Master 19 17%
Researcher 17 15%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 21 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 52 46%
Environmental Science 21 18%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Unspecified 2 2%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 29 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 January 2018.
All research outputs
#13,995,422
of 22,896,955 outputs
Outputs from Biological Reviews
#1,219
of 1,436 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,945
of 320,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biological Reviews
#16
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,896,955 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,436 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.0. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,117 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.