Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Losing woodcreepers, iconizing manakins, and despising grackles : understanding human-bird relationships… Echeverri Ochoa, Alejandra 2019

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2019_november_echeverri_ochoa_alejandra.pdf [ 24.61MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0380748.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0380748-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0380748-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0380748-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0380748-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0380748-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0380748-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0380748-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0380748.ris

Full Text

LOSING WOODCREEPERS, ICONIZING MANAKINS, AND DESPISING GRACKLES: UNDERSTANDING HUMAN-BIRD RELATIONSHIPS IN AGRO-ECOLOGICAL LANDSCAPES by  Alejandra Echeverri Ochoa  B.Sc., Universidad de los Andes, 2012 M.Sc., University of British Columbia, 2015  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Resources, Environment and Sustainability)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)  August 2019  © Alejandra Echeverri Ochoa, 2019 ii  The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the dissertation entitled:  Losing Woodcreepers, Iconizing Manakins, and Despising Grackles: Understanding Human-bird Relationships in Agro-ecological Landscapes  submitted by Alejandra Echeverri Ochoa in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Resources, Environment and Sustainability  Examining Committee: Dr. Kai M.A. Chan, Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability (IRES). University of British Columbia Co-supervisor Dr. Jiaying Zhao, IRES, Department of Psychology. University of British Columbia Co-supervisor  Dr. Daniel S. Karp, Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology, University of California Davis  Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Shannon Hagerman, Department of Forest Resources Management, University of British Columbia University Examiner Dr. Jill Jankowski, Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia University Examiner  Additional Supervisory Committee Members:  Dr. Robin Naidoo, World Wildlife Fund U.S., IRES. Supervisory Committee Member  Supervisory Committee Member iii  Abstract Although the interconnectedness of humans and the environment has long been recognized, the ecological and social dimensions of biodiversity have been largely treated separately. In this dissertation, I explore human-bird relationships in Costa Rican agro-ecological landscapes via an interdisciplinary perspective. I do so by exploring four research questions through four complementary studies and three original datasets. I seek to better understand how human-induced changes to the environment shape avian biodiversity patterns, and how birds affect people via the non-material benefits and harms derived from and constructed with birds (i.e., cultural ecosystem services and disservices).   Using avian point counts in North-western Costa Rica (n=150 point count locations) that expand through a rainfall gradient, I first explore how avian taxonomic, phylogenetic, and functional diversity vary across precipitation and tree cover gradients at local scales (i.e., alpha diversity). Drawing on methods from community ecology and global change ecology, I explain how the three dimensions of avian biodiversity show contrasting responses across environmental gradients.   Second, I explain how different stakeholders in North-western Costa Rica perceive the avifauna of the region (n=199 species). I develop a new survey tool to capture bird-related cultural ecosystem services and disservices. I show how certain species (e.g., Long-tailed Manakin) are cherished while others are despised (e.g., Great-tailed Grackles).   iv  Third, I compiled an extensive dataset of functional traits (n=20 functional traits) that include morphological, acoustic, aesthetic, ecological, and life-history traits for all species. I analyze these data using an information-theoretic approach to identify which traits best predict cultural ecosystem service and disservice scores. I show that diet, forest-affiliation, and plumage characteristics are significant predictors of how people perceive avian species.   Fourth, I combine the ecological and social data to explore how culturally important birds vary across tree cover and precipitation gradients. I also evaluate the spatial distribution patterns of highly charismatic species and show that local forest cover, particularly in wetter regions is essential for safeguarding culturally important birds.  Finally, I discuss how human-bird relationships represent a testing ground for evaluating relationships between humans and the non-human world from a variety of academic perspectives and provide recommendations for conservation planning.   v  Lay Summary  By changing land-use and climate, humans are reshaping the diversity of birds we see in the landscape. These birds provide many psychological benefits and some harms to humans, as in beautiful songs and appearances, but also annoying or harmful behaviors. My research focused on understanding human-bird relationships in Costa Rican forests, croplands, pastures, and nature reserves. I found that forests are important for maintaining birds with diverse roles in the ecosystems, and that wet forests house the most iconic and charismatic bird species for farmers, urbanites, and birdwatchers. I also found that some bird characteristics, such as plumage colors and diet, make birds prone to be liked or disliked by different groups of people. I provide some thoughts that may explain why certain bird species are loved while others despised. vi  Preface Four research chapters (2,3,4,5) are intended to be published as distinct manuscripts in academic journals. They are intended to stand-alone, which results in some repetition across chapters, particularly in the methods sections and the research contexts.  Chapter 2 has been published in a peer-review journal. I am the lead author for this publication. I designed the study, collected and analysed data, and wrote the manuscript. L.O. Frishkoff did the binomial mixture model, assisted in data analysis and in the writing. J.P. Gomez assisted in data analysis and in the writing. Co-authors P. Juarez and J. Zook assisted with data collection. R. Naidoo provided feedback on research design, interpretation of results, and provided comments to the manuscript. K.M.A. Chan, helped acquire funding, assisted in research design, and in the writing. Lastly, D.S. Karp helped with research design, data collection, data analysis, funding acquisition, and writing. This study was conducted under the sponsorship of UBC with Animal Care Committee approval (#A15-0109), and Costa Rican government approval (SINAC- SE-CUS-PI-R-036-2016; SINAC-SE-CUS-PI-R-030-2017). • Echeverri, A., Frishkoff, LO., Gomez, JP., Zook, J., Juárez, P., Naidoo, R., Chan, K.M.A., Karp, D.S. (2019). Precipitation and tree cover gradients structure avian alpha diversity in North-western Costa Rica. Diversity and Distributions, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12932  Chapter 3 has been published in a peer-review journal. I am the lead author for this publication. I designed the survey in English and translated it to Spanish. I collected data for this project with the help of six local field assistants (J. Valverde, A. Valverde, E. Obando, W. Lázaro, A. Zúñiga, vii  A. Rojas). I also performed all data analysis, data visualization, and wrote the manuscript. R. Naidoo, D.S. Karp, K.M.A. Chan and J. Zhao helped with funding acquisition, research design, and provided feedback on the manuscript. This study had Behavioral Research Ethics Board approval (#H16-00693).  • Echeverri, A., Naidoo, R., Chan, KMA., Zhao, J. (2019). Iconic manakins and despicable grackles: Comparing cultural ecosystem services and disservices across stakeholders in Costa Rica. Ecological Indicators, 106: 105454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105454  A version of Chapter 4 has been submitted for publication in a peer review journal. I am the lead author for this publication. I designed the study, collected and analyzed data, and wrote the manuscript. J.A. Tobias led the global effort of the Bird 10K project to gather the morphological trait data in museums of natural history across the world and provided feedback on the manuscript. R. Naidoo, D.S. Karp helped with research design, provided substantial input on research analysis, and provided comments on the manuscript. K.M.A. Chan and J. Zhao helped with research design, funding acquisition, and provided feedback on the manuscript. This study had Behavioral Research Ethics Board approval (#H16-00693).  A version of Chapter 5 has been submitted for publication to a peer review journal. Lead co-authorship for that article is shared by myself and D.S. Karp. D.S. Karp and I co-designed the research, analyzed data, and performed the data visualization. D.S. Karp, J. Zook, and I collected ecological data. I collected the questionnaire survey data with the help of six local field assistants. L.O. Frishkoff did the occupancy model, wrote the section of this model in the viii  manuscript, and assisted in data analysis. J. Krishnan did the land-use classification for the region via using remote sensing. We received feedback from R. Naidoo, K.M.A. Chan, and J. Zhao in the research design, data analysis, and funding acquisition. D.S. Karp and I wrote the initial draft of the manuscript and all co-authors provided comments. This study was conducted under the auspices of the University of British Columbia with Behavioral Research Ethics Board approval (#H16-00693), Animal Care Committee approval (A15-0109), and Costa Rican government approval (SINAC- SE-CUS-PI-R-036-2016; SINAC-SE-CUS-PI-R-030-2017, ACT-OR-DR-048-18).   ix  Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ................................................................................................................................ v Preface ............................................................................................................................................ v List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. xvi List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... xxiii List of Symbols ......................................................................................................................... xxvi List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. xxviii Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... xxx Dedication ............................................................................................................................... xxxiv Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Why study human-bird relationships in the Neotropics? ................................................ 5 1.2 The role of agro-ecological landscapes in preserving biodiversity and fostering human-nature relationships ..................................................................................................................... 7 1.3 Dissertation goals and dissertation statement ................................................................. 9 1.4 Theoretical underpinnings ............................................................................................ 11 1.4.1 Community ecology and functional diversity ....................................................... 11 1.4.2 Global change ecology: Biodiversity in the Anthropocene .................................. 13 1.4.3 Human-animal studies .......................................................................................... 15 1.4.3.1 Conservation psychology .................................................................................. 16 1.4.3.2 Ecosystem services ........................................................................................... 17 1.4.3.2.1 Cultural ecosystem services ........................................................................ 19 1.5 Research philosophy ..................................................................................................... 21 x  1.6 Positionality .................................................................................................................. 24 1.7 Dissertation structure and chapter summaries .............................................................. 25 Chapter 2: Precipitation and Tree Cover Gradients Structure Avian Alpha-diversity in North-western Costa Rica .......................................................................................................... 29 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 29 2.2 Methods ......................................................................................................................... 33 2.2.1 Study area and sampling locations ........................................................................ 33 2.2.2 Bird surveys .......................................................................................................... 35 2.2.3 Tree cover at local and landscape scales ............................................................... 36 2.2.4 Precipitation .......................................................................................................... 36 2.2.5 Binomial mixture model ....................................................................................... 36 2.2.6 Taxonomic, phylogenetic, and functional diversity post hoc analyses ................. 37 2.2.7 Excluding highly mobile species .......................................................................... 38 2.2.8 Testing hypotheses ................................................................................................ 39 2.3 Results ........................................................................................................................... 41 2.3.1 Effects of precipitation on diversity metrics ......................................................... 41 2.3.2 Effects of tree cover on diversity metrics ............................................................. 41 2.3.3 Interactive effects of precipitation and tree cover gradients on diversity metrics 43 2.3.4 Comparison across diversity metrics .................................................................... 44 2.3.5 Results excluding the highly mobile species ........................................................ 45 2.4 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 45 2.4.1 Precipitation and forest cover effects on taxonomic diversity .............................. 46 2.4.2 Precipitation and forest cover effects on phylogenetic diversity .......................... 47 xi  2.4.3 Precipitation and forest cover effects on functional diversity .............................. 48 2.4.4 Interactive effects of precipitation and tree cover gradients on different dimensions of biodiversity .................................................................................................... 49 2.4.5 Implications for bird conservation ........................................................................ 50 Chapter 3: Iconic Manakins and Despicable Grackles: Comparing Cultural Ecosystem Services and Disservices Across Stakeholders in Costa Rica .................................................. 51 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 51 3.2 Methods ......................................................................................................................... 54 3.2.1 Study region .......................................................................................................... 54 3.2.2 Data collection ...................................................................................................... 55 3.2.3 Survey design ........................................................................................................ 57 3.2.4 Data analysis ......................................................................................................... 60 3.3 Results ........................................................................................................................... 63 3.3.1 Most commonly mentioned species by the three stakeholder groups ................... 63 3.3.2 Comparing cultural ecosystem services across species and stakeholder groups .. 65 3.3.2.1 Disservices ........................................................................................................ 66 3.3.2.2 Education .......................................................................................................... 67 3.3.2.3 Birdwatching ..................................................................................................... 67 3.3.2.4 Acoustic aesthetics ............................................................................................ 68 3.3.2.5 Identity .............................................................................................................. 69 3.3.2.6 Bequest .............................................................................................................. 69 3.3.2.7 Correlations across cultural ecosystem services ............................................... 70 3.4 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 71 xii  3.4.1 Differences and similarities across stakeholder groups in relation to the local context ……………………………………………………………………………………71 3.4.2 Methodological insights ........................................................................................ 73 3.4.3 Caveats and future research directions ................................................................. 75 3.4.4 Recommendations for local environmental management and conservation ......... 76 3.5 Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 77 Chapter 4: Do Avian Functional Traits Predict Cultural Ecosystem Services? ................... 78 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 78 4.2 Methods ......................................................................................................................... 81 4.2.1 Study area .............................................................................................................. 81 4.2.2 Survey ................................................................................................................... 81 4.2.3 Functional traits .................................................................................................... 82 4.2.4 Statistical analyses ................................................................................................ 88 4.3 Results ........................................................................................................................... 89 4.3.1 Can functional traits predict the cultural ecosystem services associated with birds? ……………………………………………………………………………………89 4.3.2 Which functional traits predict bird-related cultural ecosystem services? ........... 89 4.3.2.1 Acoustic traits ................................................................................................... 89 4.3.2.2 Morphological traits .......................................................................................... 91 4.3.2.3 Aesthetic traits .................................................................................................. 91 4.3.2.4 Ecological traits ................................................................................................ 91 4.3.2.5 Life-history traits .............................................................................................. 92 4.4 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 93 xiii  4.5 Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 99 Chapter 5: Cultural and Ecologial Priorities Coincide in Wet Forests for Conserving Neotropical Birds ........................................................................................................................ 97 5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 100 5.2 Methods ....................................................................................................................... 102 5.2.1 Study area ............................................................................................................ 102 5.2.2 Bird surveys ........................................................................................................ 103 5.2.3 Environmental gradients ..................................................................................... 104 5.2.4 Occupancy model ................................................................................................ 104 5.2.5 Questionnaire surveys ......................................................................................... 107 5.2.6 Data analysis ....................................................................................................... 109 5.2.6.1 Calculating cultural services across communities .......................................... 109 5.2.6.2 Calculating iconic species richness across communities ................................ 110 5.2.6.3 Post-hoc analyses ............................................................................................ 110 5.2.6.4 Mapping highly charismatic species ............................................................... 111 5.3 Results and Discussion ............................................................................................... 112 5.4 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 118 Chapter 6: Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 120 6.1 Original contributions to advance socio-ecological understandings of human-bird relationships ............................................................................................................................ 121 6.2 Strengths ..................................................................................................................... 123 6.3 Limitations .................................................................................................................. 124 6.4 Future research directions ........................................................................................... 126 xiv  6.5 Beyond the academic realm: Real-world applications to bird conservation ............... 128 6.5.1 In Costa Rica ....................................................................................................... 128 6.5.1.1 Halting species loss and preserving culturally important birds through reforestation .................................................................................................................... 128 6.5.1.2 Safeguarding water birds through irrigation ................................................... 129 6.5.1.3 Demystifying stigmatized bird characters through education ........................ 130 6.5.1.4 Reinforcing environmental identities and promoting care for the environment through bird education .................................................................................................... 132 6.5.2 Beyond Costa Rica .............................................................................................. 134 6.5.2.1 Strengthening Important Bird and Biodiversity areas through collaboration with BirdLife International ..................................................................................................... 134 6.6 Final thoughts .............................................................................................................. 136 References .................................................................................................................................. 138 Appendices ................................................................................................................................. 174 Appendix A ............................................................................................................................. 174 A.1 Binomial mixture model ......................................................................................... 174 A.2 Post-hoc analyses to calculate taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional diversity . 177 A.3 Extra discussion on the comparison between functional diversity metrics ............ 180 A.4 Supplementary tables and figures ........................................................................... 182 Appendix B ............................................................................................................................. 205 B.1 Experimental design: Species presented ................................................................. 205 B.2 Information for the song and audio recordings used in the survey ......................... 213 B.3 Statistical analyses and model fits .......................................................................... 220 xv  B.4 Results from the open-ended questions .................................................................. 237 B.5 Results from the correlations with general liking of a species ............................... 244 B.6 Copy of the survey .................................................................................................. 245 Appendix C ............................................................................................................................. 305 C.1 Examples of trait data collection ............................................................................. 305 C.2 Additional information regarding biometric trait data collection ........................... 307 C.3 Pairwise correlations among numeric functional traits ........................................... 308 C.4 Multi-model inference results ................................................................................. 310 Appendix D ............................................................................................................................. 355 D.1 Supplementary figures and tables ........................................................................... 355  xvi  List of Tables  Table 3.1. Characterization of participants according to demographic information and attitudes and behavior towards birds ........................................................................................................... 56 Table 3.2. Focal species with their scientific, English, Spanish and local names ........................ 58 Table 3.3. Factor analysis results indicating six different constructs that represent various cultural ecosystem services and disservices. .............................................................................................. 62 Table 3.4. Most frequently mentioned species or groups by each stakeholder group in the open-ended questions ............................................................................................................................. 65 Table 4.1. Avian functional traits used as predictor variables in the mixed-effects models with their description. ........................................................................................................................... 85 Table 6.1. Avian species or orders with the local perceptions and the positive aspects that could be highlighted in educational campaigns. ................................................................................... 131 Table A.1. Basic site characteristics. Names of the farms and protected areas with their precipitation, tree cover at local and landscape scales, the sampling efforts (i.e., number of times a site was visited), and the mean values for species richness and detected individuals for the raw data and the posterior communities. ........................................................................................... 182 Table A.2. Model fits for the best models assessing the relationship between precipitation, tree cover at local scales (within 50m) and tree cover at landscape scales (within 610 m) for the posterior communities. ................................................................................................................ 188 Table A.3. Model fits for the best models assessing the relationship between precipitation, tree cover at local scales (within 50m) and tree cover at landscape scales (within 610 m) for the posterior communities excluding the highly mobile species. ..................................................... 190 xvii  Table A.4. Model fits for best models assessing the relationship between precipitation, tree cover at local scales and tree cover at landscape scales for the raw data. ............................................ 192 Table A.5. List of species detected in the region with their raw abundances across all sites ..... 194 Table B.1. Species presented in each one of the 22 versions of the survey ................................ 205 Table B.2. Information regarding the recordings used in the survey downloaded from the Xeno-canto website. .............................................................................................................................. 213 Table B.3. Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons for disservices scores ......................................... 222 Table B.4. Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons for education scores. .......................................... 225 Table B.5. Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons for birdwatching scores. .................................... 228 Table B.6. Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons for acoustic aesthetics scores. ........................... 230 Table B.7. Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons for identity scores. ............................................. 233 Table B.8. Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons for bequest scores. ............................................. 236 Table B.9. List of species or groups with the associated mentions by birdwatchers, farmers, and urbanites. Frequencies are reported in terms of how many times each species/group was mentioned when participants were asked to say which species they disliked or found annoying or harmful. ....................................................................................................................................... 237 Table B.10. List of species or groups with the associated mentions by birdwatchers, farmers, and urbanites. Frequencies are reported in terms of how many times each species/group was mentioned when participants were asked to say which species they enjoyed watching or hearing. ..................................................................................................................................................... 238 Table B.11. List of species or groups with the associated mentions by birdwatchers, farmers, and urbanites. Frequencies are reported in terms of how many times each species/group was xviii  mentioned when participants were asked to say which species they would like to protect for future generations. ....................................................................................................................... 242 Table B.12. Correlations between the general liking of species and their scores on all six CES categories. ................................................................................................................................... 244 Table C.1. Examples of classification of the aesthetic traits for different bird species. ............. 306 Table C.2. The first 30 of the 2305 models that represent the 95% confidence set of models between average occurrence ranks and species traits. ................................................................ 310 Table C.3. Average parameter estimates and importance value of the 95% confidence set of models (Akaike weights>0.95, including 2305 models). ........................................................... 312 Table C.4. The first 30 of the 673 models that represent the 95% confidence set of models between average occurrence ranks and species traits. ................................................................ 313 Table C.5. Average parameter estimates and importance value of the 95% confidence set of models (Akaike weights>0.95, including 673 models). ............................................................. 314 Table C.6. The first 30 of the 1197 models that represent the 95% confidence set of models between average occurrence ranks and species traits. ................................................................ 315 Table C.7. Average parameter estimates and importance value of the 95% confidence set of models (Akaike weights>0.95, including 1197 models). ........................................................... 317 Table C.8. The first 30 of the 284 models that represent the 95% confidence set of models between average occurrence ranks and species traits. ................................................................ 317 Table C.9. Average parameter estimates and importance value of the 95% confidence set of models (Akaike weights>0.95, including 284 models). ............................................................. 319 Table C.10. The first 30 of the 615 models that represent the 95% confidence set of models between average occurrence ranks and species traits. ................................................................ 320 xix  Table C.11. Average parameter estimates and importance value of the 95% confidence set of models (Akaike weights>0.95, including 615 models). ............................................................. 321 Table C.12. The first 30 of the 233 models that represent the 95% confidence set of models between average occurrence ranks and species traits. ................................................................ 322 Table C.13. Average parameter estimates and importance value of the 95% confidence set of models (Akaike weights>0.95, including 233 models). ............................................................. 324 Table C.14. The first 30 of the 7011 models that represent the 95% confidence set of models between average occurrence ranks and species traits. ................................................................ 324 Table C.15. Average parameter estimates and importance value of the 95% confidence set of models (Akaike weights>0.95, including 7011 models). ........................................................... 325 Table C.16. The first 30 of the 2820 models that represent the 95% confidence set of models between average occurrence ranks and species traits. ................................................................ 326 Table C.17. Average parameter estimates and importance value of the 95% confidence set of models (Akaike weights>0.95, including 2820 models). ........................................................... 328 Table C.18. The first 30 of the 15953 models that represent the 95% confidence set of models between average occurrence ranks and species traits. ................................................................ 328 Table C.19. Average parameter estimates and importance value of the 95% confidence set of models (Akaike weights>0.95, including 15953 models). ......................................................... 330 Table C.20. The first 30 of the 2049 models that represent the 95% confidence set of models between average occurrence ranks and species traits. ................................................................ 330 Table C.21. Average parameter estimates and importance value of the 95% confidence set of models (Akaike weights>0.95, including 2049 models). ........................................................... 332 xx  Table C.22. The first 30 of the 4485 models that represent the 95% confidence set of models between average occurrence ranks and species traits. ................................................................ 332 Table C.23. Average parameter estimates and importance value of the 95% confidence set of models (Akaike weights>0.95, including 4485 models). ........................................................... 334 Table C.24. The first 30 of the 3593 models that represent the 95% confidence set of models between average occurrence ranks and species traits. ................................................................ 334 Table C.25. Average parameter estimates and importance value of the 95% confidence set of models (Akaike weights>0.95, including 3593 models). ........................................................... 337 Table C.26. The first 30 of 5579 models that represent the 95% confidence set of models between average occurrence ranks and species traits ................................................................. 337 Table C.27. Average parameter estimates and importance value of the 95% confidence set of models (Akaike weights>0.95, including 5579 models). ........................................................... 339 Table C.28. The first 30 of the 987 models that represent the 95% confidence set of models between average occurrence ranks and species traits. ................................................................ 339 Table C.29. Average parameter estimates and importance value of the 95% confidence set of models (Akaike weights>0.95, including 987 models). ............................................................. 341 Table C.30. The first 30 of the 2313 models that represent the 95% confidence set of models between average occurrence ranks and species traits. ................................................................ 342 Table C.31. Average parameter estimates and importance value of the 95% confidence set of models (Akaike weights>0.95, including 2313 models). ........................................................... 343 Table C.32. The first 30 of the 504 models that represent the 95% confidence set of models between average occurrence ranks and species traits. ................................................................ 344 xxi  Table C.33. Average parameter estimates and importance value of the 95% confidence set of models (Akaike weights>0.95, including 504 models). ............................................................. 346 Table C.34. The first 30 of the 111898 models that represent the 95% confidence set of models between average occurrence ranks and species traits. ................................................................ 347 Table C.35. Average parameter estimates and importance value of the 95% confidence set of models (Akaike weights>0.95, including 111898 models). ....................................................... 349 Table C.36. The first 30 of the 16414 models that represent the 95% confidence set of models between average occurrence ranks and species traits. ................................................................ 349 Table C.37. Average parameter estimates and importance value of the 95% confidence set of models (Akaike weights>0.95, including 16414 models). ......................................................... 350 Table C.38. The first 30 of the 45106 models that represent the 95% confidence set of models between average occurrence ranks and species traits. ................................................................ 351 Table C.39. Average parameter estimates and importance value of the 95% confidence set of models (Akaike weights>0.95, including 45106 models). ......................................................... 352 Table C.40. The first 30 of the 12799 models that represent the 95% confidence set of models between average occurrence ranks and species traits. ................................................................ 353 Table C.41. Average parameter estimates and importance value of the 95% confidence set of models (Akaike weights>0.95, including 12799 models). ......................................................... 354 Table D.1. Model fits for the best models predicting SES cultural service scores for birdwatchers ..................................................................................................................................................... 362 Table D.2. Model fits for the best models predicting SES cultural service scores for farmers/urbanites ......................................................................................................................... 364 xxii  Table D.3. Model fits for the best models predicting the richness of iconic species for different cultural ecosystem service categories for birdwatchers .............................................................. 366 Table D.4. Model fits for the best models predicting the richness of iconic species for different cultural ecosystem service categories for farmers/urbanites ...................................................... 368 Table D.5. Model fits for the best models predicting the richness of highly charismatic species for farmers/urbanites and birdwatchers ...................................................................................... 370 Table D.6. List of the highly charismatic species for birdwatchers and farmers/urbanites ........ 371  xxiii  List of Figures  Figure 1.1. Conceptual framework and some examples of diverse relationships between people and birds with positive and negative valence……………………………………………………10 Figure 1.2. Dissertation structure showing the research questions addressed in each data chapter and how they fit in relation to the ecological or the social dimensions of human-bird relationships……………………………………………………………………………………...26 Figure 2.1. Map of the study area and the point count locations………………………………...34 Figure 2.2. Taxonomic, phylogenetic, and functional bird diversity across precipitation and tree cover gradients at local and landscape scales……………………………………………………42 Figure 2.3. Effects of tree cover on functional dispersion……………………………………….43 Figure 2.4. Pairwise correlations across the diversity metrics…………………………………...44 Figure 3.1. Relationship between stakeholder groups and their perceived cultural ecosystem service categories across 199 species……………………………………………………………65 Figure 3.2. Scores for six ecosystem service categories across eight focal species and stakeholder groups…………………………………………………………………………………………….67 Figure 3.3. Pairwise correlations across cultural ecosystem service categories for each stakeholder group………………………………………………………………………………......................70 Figure 4.1. The 20 functional traits predicting 5 cultural ecosystem service categories (birdwatching, acoustic aesthetics, education, identity, and disservices)………………………..89 Figure 5.1. Wetter and more forested sites house more culturally important bird communities.110 Figure 5.2. More iconic species are found in wetter, more forested sites………………………112 xxiv  Figure 5.3. Highly charismatic species are found near the pacific coast of the Nicoya Peninsula, in wetter and more forested areas………………………………………………………………….114 Figure 6.1. Water birds are found near the irrigation canals in the middle of the croplands located in dry areas of Guanacaste……………………………………………………………………...127 Figure 6.2. Ornithologist and co-author Jim Zook leading a bird identification workshop with local communities in Guanacaste……………………………………………………………………..131 Figure A.1. Spatial scale for the landscape context selected by the binomial mixture model….195 Figure A.2. Relationship between precipitation and tree cover gradients at local and landscape scales with taxonomic, phylogenetic, and functional diversity metrics of bird communities with the posterior communities—excluding the highly mobile species……………………………..196 Figure A.3. Relationship between precipitation and tree cover gradients at local and landscape scales with taxonomic, phylogenetic, and functional diversity metrics of bird communities—for the raw data……………………………………………………………………………………..197 Figure A.4. Pairwise correlations across the diversity metrics when analyzing the posterior communities including all species……………………………………………………………...198 Figure A.5. Pairwise correlations across the diversity metrics when analyzing the posterior communities excluding the highly mobile species……………………………………………..199 Figure A.6. Pairwise correlations across the diversity metrics when analyzing the raw data….200 Figure B.1. Model fits for each species and three stakeholder groups regarding disservices scores……………………………………………………………………………………………217 Figure B.2. Model fits for each species and three stakeholder groups regarding education scores……………………………………………………………………………………………220 xxv  Figure B.3. Model fits for each species and three stakeholder groups regarding birdwatching scores……………………………………………………………………………………………223 Figure B.4. Model fits for each species and three stakeholder groups regarding identity scores……………………………………………………………………………………………228 Figure B.5. Visualizing predicted values from the model by pooling all eight focal species and just comparing across stakeholder groups……………………………………………………...........231 Figure B.6. Visualizing predicted values from the model by pooling all stakeholder groups and just comparing across species…………………………………………………………………..231 Figure C.1. Examples of bird songs and analysis of the number of syllables and notes……….301 Figure C.2. Pairwise correlations with 14 numerical traits for 199 species……………………304 Figure C.3. Pairwise correlations with 16 numerical traits for 150 species……………………305 Figure D.1. Pairwise correlations between standardized effect sizes of cultural services and disservices scores across avian communities…………………………………………………..351 Figure D.2. Sampling locations………………………………………………………………...352 Figure D.3. Histogram with the best scale supported by the model (670 m)…………………..353 Figure D.4. Wetter and more forested sites tend to house more culturally important avian communities for birdwatchers …………………………………………………………………..354 Figure D.5. Effects of precipitation on cultural service scores for farmers/urbanites and birdwatchers…………………………………………………………………………………….355 Figure D.6. Effects of precipitation on the richness of iconic species for cultural ecosystem services………………………………………………………………………………………….356 Figure D.7. Effects of tree cover at landscape scales on the richness of iconic species for cultural ecosystem services……………………………………………………………………………...357 xxvi  List of Symbols N True abundance of each species (i) at each point count location (j) during each visit (k) in each year (t) following a Poisson distribution, from the binomial mixture model of Chapter 2 Λ Expected number of individuals of each species (i) at each point count location (j) during each year (t), from the binomial mixture model of Chapter 2 α Parameters in the alpha family referring to fixed-effect terms in the binomial mixture model of Chapter 2 and the occupancy model of Chapter 5 η Parameters in the eta family referring to fixed-effect terms in the binomial mixture model of Chapter 2 and the occupancy model of Chapter 5 β Parameters in the beta family referring to terms estimated separately for each species in the binomial mixture model of Chapter 2 θ Parameters in the theta family referring to terms estimated separately for each species in the binomial mixture model of Chapter 2 µ Mean of a parameter drawn from a normal distribution in the binomial mixture model of Chapter 2 and the occupancy model of Chapter 5 σ( Variance of a parameter drawn from a normal distribution in the binomial mixture model of Chapter 2 and the occupancy model of Chapter 5 γ Random intercept in the binomial mixture model of Chapter 2 and the occupancy model of Chapter 5 δ Random intercept in the binomial mixture model of Chapter 2 and the occupancy model of Chapter 5 xxvii  ψ Detection probability of of each species (i) at each point count location (j) during each year (t) in the occupancy model of Chapter 5 +( Chi-squared symbol, referring to the results of chi-squared tests p Symbol used to refer to p-values n Sample size xxviii  List of Abbreviations AIC  Akaike’s Information Criterion ANOVA Analysis of Variance BIC  Bayesian Information Criterion CCRO  Clay-coloured Thrush (Turdus grayi) CES  Cultural Ecosystem Services CI  Confidence Interval df  Degrees of freedom EDGE  Evolutionarily Distinct & Globally Endangered species FDis  Functional dispersion (a metric of functional diversity) FDiv  Functional divergence (a metric of functional diversity) FEve  Functional evenness (a metric of functional diversity) FRic  Functional richness (a metric of functional diversity) GBAN  Groove-billed Ani (Crotophaga sulcirostris) GDP  Gross Domestic Product GTGR  Great-tailed Grackle (Quiscalus mexicanus) KBTO  Keel-billed Toucan (Ramphastos sulfuratus) LMMs  Linear Mixed Models logLik  Natural logarithm of a Maximum Likelihood estimation LTMA  Long-tailed Manakin (Chiroxiphia linearis) MAG  Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería de Costa Rica MCMC Markov Chains MNTD Mean Nearest Taxon Distance (a metric of phylogenetic diversity) xxix  MPD  Mean Phylogenetic Distance (a metric of phylogenetic diversity) NCP  Nature’s Contributions to People NEOORN Neotropical Ornithology discussion list OCPA  Orange-chinned Parakeet (Brotogeris jugularis) PCoA  Principal Coordinates Analysis PD  Faith’s Phylogenetic Distance (a metric of phylogenetic diversity) PSV  Phylogenetic Species Variability (a metric of phylogenetic diversity) RNWR Rufous-naped Wren (Campylorhynchus rufinucha) RVI  Relative Variable Importance  SE   Standard Error SES  Standardized Effect Size Tukey HSD Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference test WTMJ  White-throated Magpie-Jay (Calocitta formosa) xxx  Acknowledgements The work presented here would not have been possible without the help, encouragement, support, and feedback of many wonderful beings. I am indebted with all the humans and non-humans that have crossed paths with me at different stages of my training and have taught me to love my profession. First, I would like to thank my supervisory committee for their unwavering support, their professionalism, their commitment, and their thoughtful feedback throughout these years. This dissertation would not have been possible without any of you. To my co-supervisors Jiaying Zhao and Kai Chan: Thank you for mentoring me for the past six years. I have learned so much from both of you. Jiaying, thank you for pushing me to publish every idea I had, for introducing me to the fascinating world of psychology, for being so rigorous with my experimental design, cover letters, and presentations. Thank you for challenging my thinking in many ways. I became a researcher thanks to your mentorship in my MSc and PhD degrees. Kai, thank you for being my best cheerleader, for always nominating me for awards, for encouraging me to apply to many research grants, for being so strict with my writing, and for pushing me to think big and to not give up on my dreams. I am now a better writer and a more ambitious scientist thanks to your mentorship.  To my committee members Daniel Karp and Robin Naidoo: words are not enough to describe how grateful I am for your support and feedback. Danny, you have spoiled me, as you definitely raised the bar too high for what I now expect from future collaborators and co-authors. Thank you for teaching me everything you know about avian ecology, for being the best teammate while in the field and in the office. For being so brilliant at mentoring me in every step xxxi  of this dissertation (including measuring understory density and getting the plots right). Thank you for being so skeptical with my research results (often a product of my rushed personality). For double checking everything I did and wrote, and for sharing your love towards birds and Latin America with me.  Robin, thank you for being always so sharp with your comments. It has been a pleasure to learn from you the lore of statistical analyses and field ecology. Your work is a true inspiration. One day I hope I can be as interdisciplinary and rigorous as you. Thank you for being willing to mentor me (even knowing how busy you are) and for helping me think about the application of my work beyond the academic realm. Thank you for sharing your passion towards wildlife with me, and for sharing awesome wildlife pictures that kept me motivated throughout this degree.  I would like to express my gratitude to all the agencies and individuals who funded the research conducted here. Without them, none of this would have been possible. Thanks to the National Geographic Society, the Belmont Forum, the University of British Columbia, the U.S. Forest Service, the Killam Trust, the Government of Canada through the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). Also, thanks to Raja Rosenbluth and her living relative Vera Anne Rosenbluth, Werner and Hildegard Hesse, Les Lavkulich, Maud Killam, and Eliza Killam for financial support. Five field trips were necessary to complete the work presented here. Each one of these trips were so enjoyable thanks to everyone who was part of the FuturAgua team and beyond. Special thanks to Douw Steyn, Laura Morillas, Mark Johnson, Silja Hund, Tim McDaniels, Jennifer Romero, Paige Olmsted, Gretchen Daily, Jeffrey Smith, Nicholas Hendershot, Christopher Anderson, and Alison Ke for their invaluable help at different stages of this research. xxxii  In Costa Rica, thanks to Jim Zook, Pedro Juárez, Lubi Bogantes, Xinia Campos, Emel Rodríguez, Patricia Zúñiga, Adrián Zúñiga, Wendy Lázaro, Doña Siria, Ever Obando, Verónica Obando, Abigail Valverde, Josué Valverde, Roy May, Alejandra Robledo, Juan Diego Vargas, Ricardo Guindon, Asociación de Ornitólogos de Costa Rica, Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería, and all the landowners who allowed us to work on their farms. I am indebted to my brilliant co-authors for their time and knowledge. Special thanks to Luke Frishkoff for inspiring my science, for giving the best and most hilarious comments in all my manuscripts’ drafts, for being so skeptical with my statistical analyses and plots, and for teaching me so much about ecology, evolution, and statistics. Thanks to Joe Tobias for leading a global effort to measure all our worlds’ birds, for sharing the data with me, for providing comments to my manuscript, and for sharing with me the passion towards birds. Thanks to Jaya Krishnan for dedicating so many hours of her time to mapping the land-use in North-western Costa Rica. I think this map is one of the most valuable contributions of our science to local stakeholders. A special note to my co-author, mentor, and role model, Juan Pablo Gómez. Thank you for introducing me to the world of Neotropical birds more than a decade ago, for inspiring my work, for teaching me how to do science, how to do field work in the first place, and how not to get frustrated with the scientific process. I hope we can continue to build Colombian science together so we can preserve the forests and the birds that we both deeply care about. To all my friends who made Vancouver a place where I grew as a person and a scholar. Too many friends to mention here, but a few deserve explicit recognition: Thank you to Natalia Balyasnikova, Emily Rankin, and Andrés Barrero for coping with me and my early morning schedules. Thank you for always being there for me. Thanks to Melissa Guzmán, Matt Pennell, xxxiii  Oscar Urtatiz, Maria Angélica Guerrero, Federico Andrade, Diana Franco, Juan Diego Martínez, Santiago David, Jenny Muñoz, Richard Johnston, Vianey Ramírez, Adriana Suárez, Felix Martínez, Jorge Martínez, and Francisco Henao for celebrating with me every step of this process. To all my friends and colleagues at IRES and other departments at UBC: thank you for all the good memories, and for the inspiring conversations that challenged my thinking. I especially thank David Gill, Sebastián Medrano, Galina Seergeva, Lora Moon, Deena Dinat, Sameer Shah, Meggie Callahan, Mollie Chapman, and Nicolás Talloni. Thanks to my amazing group of supportive academic women, for showing me the value of true friendship and sisterhood: Tugce Conger, Ghazal Ebrahimi, Jackie Yip, Lucy Rodina, Elizabeth Williams, Nancy Silva, Rumi Naito, Brenda D’Acunha, Rocío López, and Nayadeth Arriagada, thank you. Estaré siempre agradecida con mis padres Gloria Inés y Christian, con mis hermanos, Andrea y Miguel, y con mi cuñado, Juan David. Gracias por ser mi luz en el camino, mi soporte más robusto, la alegría de mi vida y mi mejor ejemplo a seguir. Gracias también a todos mis tíos y mis tías, primos y primas. Tantos para mencionar acá. Familia: sin ustedes, estaría perdida. Gracias por enseñarme el valor de la educación y del trabajo bien hecho. Gracias por demostrarme que juntos, en familia, logramos todo aquello que nos proponemos.  Lastly, I have to thank all the non-human animals in my life. Thanks to Mango, Petra, Josefina, Matilde, Vuvuzela, Roca, and all the birds in Costa Rican, Canadian, and Colombian landscapes. Thank you for inspiring my work. A world without animals would be awfully boring. I cannot imagine where I would be personally or professionally if it were not for their presence in my life. xxxiv  Dedication         A mis padres, Gloria Inés Ochoa Arango y Christian Echeverri Gómez, quienes me inculcaron el amor por la naturaleza y quienes apoyaron mi curiosidad científica desde hace más de dos décadas 1  Chapter 1: Introduction “Birds are beautiful. I like how they sing. I find their feathers mesmerizing. I also like to see them dance. I like when they fly from one side to the other. Birds beautify the forests and the landscapes wherever they are”  ¾Farmer in Nicoya, Costa Rica (2017)  The diversity of life on Earth is inextricably bound with human existence. From the microbial symbionts that live in our guts, to the myriads of trees that allow us to breathe, human well-being is interconnected with the lives of many other species that inhabit this planet (Daily 1997). We have learned to use other species for medicines, food, fibers, among other things (Díaz et al. 2006; Díaz et al. 2018). However, more than ever, biodiversity is under siege. Present rates of human-induced changes to the environment, such as climate change and habitat conversion, forecast the Anthropocene as one of the most devastating epochs for biodiversity on Earth (Dirzo et al. 2014). In fact, it is haunting to realize that many species that were once abundant are teetering on the brink of extinction, and that the current and widespread extinction phenomenon can mostly be attributed to the human footprint on the planet (Symes et al. 2018). Hence, a challenge in biodiversity research today is to understand how human actions towards the environment are altering biodiversity. This is needed to accurately predict and mitigate changes in the distributions of species and benefits that people derive from ecosystems¾also called ecosystem services (Daily 1997). Human dependence on biodiversity and ecosystem services is increasing due to population and economic growth. A central challenge in conservation planning is therefore protecting ecosystems for the maintenance of both biodiversity and ecosystem services (Cimon-Morin et al. 2013). Given that environmental degradation and the linked issue of biodiversity loss can largely be attributed to human impacts, addressing such phenomena will require 2  attention to human action (Schultz et al. 2005; Clayton et al. 2013). In fact, many species will persist based on our collective desire and actions targeted to protect them. Thus, another major challenge for biodiversity conservation research and practice is to understand individual human behavior and intervene as appropriate (Selinske et al. 2018). Human behavior derives from complex interactions between identity, values, value orientations, social and individual norms, attitudes, and a number of contextual factors including institutional and social rules (Schwartz 2006; Ajzen & Fishbein 1977; Albarracin & Wyer 2000). Thus, understanding individual human behavior requires an analysis of the aspects that motivate pro-environmental actions, such as identity, attitudes, and perceptions of biodiversity (Clayton et al. 2013). Although the interconnectedness of humans and the environment has long been recognized (e.g., Ingold 2000), the ecological and social dimensions of biodiversity have been largely treated as separate entities (Redman et al. 2004). For the most part, ecologists and social scientists have pursued answers to fundamental questions about biodiversity and how it relates to people from within the boundaries of their own discipline, neglecting the relationships between