Infrastructure and the ethnographic-cartographic production of urban bird species richness
Data files
Sep 25, 2023 version files 3.23 MB
-
Circular_statistics_data_rehab_study_area.csv
-
NMDS_data_study_area.csv
-
Raw_geocoded_rehab_data_Leon_County.csv
-
README.md
-
Rehab_locations.zip
-
Sampling_area.zip
-
Shared_species_only.csv
-
Unique_eBird_species.csv
-
Unique_rehab_species.csv
Abstract
The qualitative bio-geographies of human geographers and the quantitative mappings of biogeographers share a goal: how to understand living with non-human life. Yet they rarely bridge the conceptual and methodological gap between them. This paper theorizes how the concept of infrastructure can bridge this ethnographic-cartographic divide. Infrastructure is not just an inanimate shell. It is also a system of relation, a dynamic patterning of socionatural form emerging out of the experiences and affective moments of its constituents. As a proof of concept, we quantified and compared urban bird species richness and frequency for Tallahassee, Florida over a 17-year period (2000–2017) for two co-occurring observational infrastructures, eBird and a wildlife rehabilitation center that serves the city. Species common to both infrastructures comprised 94% of all eBird observations and 99% of all rehab records. Their differences reflected contrasts in how the motivations for experiencing birds intersected with bird habitat preferences, behavior, and contingencies of urban history and development. eBird observations had high species richness (295 spp) and reflected the growing popularity among birds and a small number of active birders for visiting stormwater retention lakes recently modified to improve bird habitat. Rehabilitation records had a lower richness (194 spp) and exhibited a much more even distribution of bird encounters among individual residents as well as community institutions like schools, universities, law enforcement, and other government organizations. Infrastructural perspectives convey how affective and individualistic encounters with non-humans can link to emergent biogeographic mappings and how urban biodiversity is relationally and heterogeneously produced rather than simply contained in cities.
README
Infrastructure and the ethnographic-cartographic production of urban bird species richness
These are the data sets used in the research article Infrastructure and the ethnographic-cartographic production of urban bird species richness published in Environment and Planning F (Sage Publishers). There are two data sets, one consists of the records of birds brought into a wildlife rehabilitation center and the other is eBird records for the same geographic area. These data were geocoded and analyzed to ascertain their differences in bird relative percent frequency and species richness across the study and through time. For further information consult the publication or contact the author, J. Anthony Stallins (ja.stallins@uky.edu).
Stallins JA, Lally N, Luther E, 2023. Infrastructure and the ethnographic-cartographic production of urban bird species richness. Environment and Planning F.
Description of the data
Shared_species_only.csv
This data set lists bird species common to the eBird and the wildlife rehab datasets within the circular study area employed in this study.
- Col 1 Row label - Species name
- Col 2 eBirdRP - Relative percent frequency of occurrence in the eBird data
- Col 3 eBirdC - Number of observations that recorded the presence of this species in eBird
- Col 4 RehabRP - Relative percent frequency of occurrence in the rehab data
- Col 5 RehabC - Number of rehab observations
- Col 6 Status - Identifier only, C (common to both datasets)
Unique_eBird_species.csv
This data set lists bird species unique to the eBird observations within the circular study area. These are bird species that did not appear in the rehab observations.
- Col 1 Name - Species
- Col 2 eBirdRP - Relative percent frequency of occurrence in the eBird data
- Col 3 eBirdC - Number of observations that recorded the presence of this species in eBird
- Col 4 Status Identifier only, UE (Unique to eBird)
Unique_rehab_species.csv
This data set lists bird species unique to the rehab data within the circular study area. These species did not appear within the study area for the eBird data at the time of the analysis.
- Col 1 Name - Species
- Col 2 RehabRP - Relative percent frequency of occurrence
- Col 3 RehabC - Number of observations that recorded the presence of this species in rehab data
- Col 4 Status Identifier only, UR (Unique to rehab)
- Col 5 Common - Common name
- Col 6 Notes - Possible explanations for uniqueness
NMDS_study_area.csv
This is the data set used to perform non-metric multidimensional scaling of how frequencies have changed through time for wildlife rehab and eBird data
- Col 1 YEARDATA - Year and dataset (E - eBird, R - rehab)
- Col 2 DATA - Category (1 - eBird, 2 - rehab)
- Cols 3 - 305 Species relative percent frequency. Species are listed by the first three letters of their genus name and the first three letters of their species name
Raw_geocoded_rehab_data_Leon_County.csv
These are wildlife rehabilitation observations for 2000-2017. Coordinates represent the location associated with the address of the individual who brought in a bird for rehab. Projection coordinate system: WGS 1984 Web Mercator. Projection: Mercator Auxilliary Sphere.
- Col 1 X - Meters west
- Col 2 Y - Meters north
- Col 3 DATE
- Col 4 YEAR
- Col 5 MONTH
- Col 6 DAY - Day of the month
- Col 7 SCIENTIFIC - Species name
- Col 8 CLASS - Taxonomic class (Aves)
- Col 9 COMMON - Common name
- Col 10 ABRV - Abbreviated common name using first three letters of the genus name and the first three letters of the species name
Circular_statistics_data_rehab_study_area.csv
This data set was used to calculate the annual distribution of rehab recoveries. This data lists all the rehab recoveries by date as recorded on intake paperwork at the rehab center. Count and frequency data can be used to summarize across species and time intervals.
- Col 1 CALENDAR Date (Month/Day/Year)
- Col 2 DOTM - Day of the month (1-31)
- Col 3 YR - Year (2000-2017)
- Col 4 MNTH - Month (1-12)
- Col 5 SCIENTIFIC - Species name
- Col 6 COMMON - Common name
- Col 7 COUNT - Count variable only (1) used to summarize rehab recoveries by species and date
- Col 8 RELPER - Relative percent frequency of each rehab recovery
- Col 9 WOTY - Week of the year (1-52)
- Col 10 DATASET - Rehab data set identifier only (1)
Rehab_locations.zip
Rehab_locations.shp
This shapefile shows the point locations of rehab recoveries for the circular study area. Projection coordinate system: WGS 1984 Web Mercator. Projection: Mercator Auxilliary Sphere. Shapefiles can be viewed in QGIS (open source) or ESRI ArcGIS software. Attributes contained in this shapefile in the .dbf file
- Col 1 ID - Unique identifier
- Col 2 ADDRESS - Street address of rescuer
- Col 3 X - Meters west (geocoded address)
- Col 4 Y - Meters north (geocoded address)
- Col 5 DATE - MM/DD/YYYY
- Col 6 YEAR - 2000-2017
- Col 7 MONTH - 1-12
- Col 8 DAY - Day of the month (1-31)
- Col 9 REASON - Rehabber remarks on reason for injury
- Col 10 CITY
- Col 11 SCIENTIFIC - Scientific name
- Col 12 CLASS - Taxonomic class (AVES)
- Col 13 COMMON - Common name
- Col 14 ABRV - Abbreviated common name using first three letters of the genus name and the first three letters of the species name
Sampling_area.zip
Sampling_area.shp
This is a polygon shapefile demarcating the circular study area centered over Tallahassee, Florida. All data used in the analyses for this study were contained within this circular area. Projection coordinate system: WGS 1984 Web Mercator. Projection: Mercator Auxilliary Sphere.
Sharing/Access information
Raw eBird data are available from the eBird website. Only eBird summary results are presented in these files.
Code/Software
Non-metric multidimensional scaling was performed on PC-Ord Version 7.
Methods
The raw wildlife rehabilitation data set was obtained from St Francis Wildlife Association and Rehabilitation Center in Quincy, Florida. These data consisted of the records of birds brought in for rehabilitation over the period 2000–2017. These data were cleaned up to include only complete records. Addresses for each record are associated with the individual or entity that brought the birds in for rehab. These were geocoded to produce a distribution of point locations for these rehab events. eBird data was obtained from the online website. These were filtered to include only those observations that were part of completed checklists.
Usage notes
QGIS or ESRI ArcGIS products