Aster Sigel

EPY-702
Research Review & Critique Paper
1. Identify and evaluate the clarity of the problem statement.
The overarching problem addressed in the paper is that although
bird species declines have been documented at several tropical forest
sites, there are few formal comparisons between sites to see if
patterns are similar. This paper looks specifically at two sites: La Selva
Biological Station, Costa Rica and Barro Colorado Island, Panama, to
see if there are similar patterns in long term bird community changes.
The problem statement is given in the first sentence of the final
paragraph of the Introduction: Although both La Selva and BCI have
experienced long-term
avian declines and extirpations (Robinson, 2001; Sigel et al.,2006), the
two sites avian communities have never been compared formally to
assess whether isolation has caused similar changes in community
composition.
The paper measures changes in bird communities at two tropical
field sites and attempts to find similarities between those changes.
2. Does the included literature review establish the need for
conducting the research?
Paragraph 2 of the Introduction establishes the history of tropical
bird research and identifies some shortcomings in previous research
addressed by this paper. These shortcomings include that previous
studies only analyze forest fragments of up to 100 ha in size, and
evidence suggests that impacts on bird communities may occur in
larger fragments, such as the ones selected for this study
(approximately 1500 ha in size). Also patterns in species declines may
be site specific, so adding analyses from these sites would add to a
growing body of knowledge to determine whether there are predictable
responses of bird communities to habitat loss globally.
3. Thoroughness and relevance of the literature review.
This study identifies other field sites that have long-term data,
including the Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments Project (BDFFP)
in Manaus, Brazil. In the Introduction the authors also discuss findings
of other research papers on the impacts of habitat loss on tropical bird
communities. These papers are relevant to explaining patterns of
species loss discussed in this paper.

4. Identify specific research questions

One specific research question of this study is whether forest loss
and isolation at the two field sites (La Selva and BCI) has resulted in
similar changes in bird community composition over time. As part of
the analysis the authors also determine whether changes have
occurred in the bird communities in response to regional deforestation,
and identified what those changes are. Some of these changes had
been identified by previous research. The novel part of the paper is the
comparison between sites.
5. Adequacy of sampling procedure.
The authors did not conduct the sampling directly as part of this
study, but used data collected from other sources previously to
address their hypothesis. The bird communities of both sites have been
well studied for many years and a robust data set on the relative
abundance of bird species has been developed. The authors use data
from both quantitative surveys and qualitative abundance data
gathered from multiple sources.
6. Appropriateness of the subjects.
The subjects are the two sampling sites: La Selva Biological
Station, Costa Rica and Barro Colorado Island, Panama. Although the
authors are attempting to compare bird community changes between
the two sites it is impossible to control for differences between sites.
Climate, weather patterns and observers differ between sites. These
shortcomings are identified in the paper.
7. Operational definitions of measured variables.
Several variables are identified in the paper. Five ecological
characteristics of bird species are used: diet, flocking behavior, habitat,
nest type, and nest height. Population status for each species is also
identified. The authors categorized all species into three population
categories (increasing, decreasing, not changing) based on previously
collected data. The categorical variables are defined by the authors
from previous literature and their own expertise. Citations are given for
sources used in the categorization of the ecological variables and body
mass. The authors are detailed in how they assigned variables. For
example for body mass the authors state, Body mass data were taken
from Dunning (2008). Female
mass was used where information for both sexes was given, and the
nearest geographical location was used where entries were given for
multiple sites. The average of the minimum and maximum values was

used where a range was given without a mean.

For the population
change status at La Selva five categories were recognized based on
data from Sigel et al. (2006) and Christmas Bird Count data from
19852005 (available online at http://www.ots.ac.cr/en/laselva/
species/birdcounts/index.shtml):
Dependent and independent variables:
Contingency tables: independent variables are the ecological
categorizations and the number of species that occur in each category
on the dependent variables.
Binomial logistic regression: Body mass is the independent variable,
population status (declining, not declining) is the dependent variable.
8. Evaluate the appropriateness of the operational definitions as
indicators of the theoretical constructs being measured.
9. Appropriateness of statistical analyses
The authors used contingency tables with the number of species
belonging to each of five ecological guilds that are either extant or
extirpated at each site. The authors used binomial logistic regression
to determine if body mass was a factor in population changes.
10. Can the research be replicated?
All sources of data are reported and a description of the method
and analyses are given and could be replicated. However, the
circumstances under which the original data were collected could not
be replicated exactly, as deforestation has occurred and sampling was
done over several decades. Also, since the data were collected outside,
many extrinsic factors such as light availability, time of day,
temperature, and humidity could not be controlled or replicated.
11. Conclusions are consistent with the research question?
The conclusions answer the research question comparing the
bird communities of the two sites. The authors found both similarities
and differences between the two sites. Similarities include a decline in
insectivorous birds and species that nest low to the ground, which may
be indicative of broader patterns, but research in additional sites would
be necessary to confirm this. The authors attribute different patterns of

species loss between to the two sites to differences in the landscape

contexts. Despite both sites being about the same size, Barro Colorado
Island is completely surrounded by water, while La Selva is connected
to upland forest and is surrounded by a mixture of plantations and
pastures.
12. Limitations regarding external validity, recognized by author?
The authors identify several limitations with their research. They
note that the lack of statistical independence of the ecological guilds
made it difficult to identify specifically which ecological variables are
associated with extirpations from the two sites. They also note that
having only two large Neotropical sites limited their ability to
generalize the patterns they found.
13. Strengths and weaknesses
The strengths of the study include data over long time periods
and from relatively well-studied field locations.
The main weakness of the study is that it still only looks at two
study sites, so the generalizability of the results is limited. There is also
no true control site to determine with changes in the bird
communities at both sites are attributable to habitat loss.
14. How can the study be improved?
Adding more sampling locations would increase the
generalizability of the results. It is difficult to say that coincidental
changes between two sites are truly a pattern.
15. APA citation:
Sigel, B. J., Douglas Robinson, W., & Sherry, T. W. (2010). Comparing
bird community responses to forest fragmentation in two lowland
Central American reserves. Biological conservation, 143(2), 340-350.