Figure legends
Figure 1. Overall community structure in 1982 vs 2018. The left
panel shows the comparison of rank abundance plots for all species
detected in 1982 (red) vs 2018 (blue). The solid points show the
observed species abundances. The solid lines show the fit of the best
rank abundance model (lognormal in both cases) and the colored polygons
show a 95% CI of the fits computed using parametric bootstrap. The
right panels show the hotspots of alpha diversity within the plot in
1982 and 2018 based on a 25 x 25 m grid. Each map presents the sum of
the standardized kernel density estimates for all the species’ spot maps
for both the 1982 census and the 2018 census. This plot is analogous to
Terborgh et al.’s12 map of superimposed distributions
for all species (their Figure 3).
Figure 2. Regression of abundance (panel A) and change in
abundance in relation to body mass (panel B). Panel A shows the results
of linear models where the results from 2018 were regressed against the
results of 1982. This panel shows a simple linear regression fit and its
CI (white dotted line and grey polygon). The solid black line indicates
the 1:1 relationship which represents no change between the two time
periods. The x axis in panel B represents the 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 and
0.9 quantiles of the biomass distribution of all bird species present in
Cocha Cashu, while the y axis shows the difference in biomass between
1982 and 2018 time periods for each species. The parenthesis “(“
indicates an open interval end while square bracket indicates closed
interval end.
Figure 3. Temporal comparison (from 1982 to 2018) of the
occupancy estimates via non-parametric bootstrap using the following
ecological partitioning axes: ecological guild, foraging strata,
sociality and habitat specialization: Bamboo/No bamboo and River-edge/No
river-edge. Is the correlation in spatial distribution between time
periods, per ecological partitioning axis, greater than what would be
expected by chance? To answer this question, for each species we first
estimated its KDE from 1982 using the digitized old spatial observations
and computed its spatial correlation with the KDE derived with the 2018
spatial data. Then, we generated via non-parametric bootstrap 10,000
samples of KDE correlations under a Null model (see methods). The
observed and the Null bootstrap distributions of the correlations per
ecological partitioning axis are shown side by side in orange and blue,
respectively. Note that in all comparisons, the observed median
correlation is larger than the median correlation expected at random
(see results of the non-parametric bootstrap test and Fig. S6). The
rightmost panels with maps compare the distribution of Understory and
Canopy Flock territories from 1982 (blue polygons) with those from 2018
(colored points). The 2018 colored points correspond to 6965 direct
observations of geo-referenced flock activity.