Notice bibliographique
Résumé
There is no doubt that global temperatures are rapidly getting hotter and that animals need to adapt to their quickly changing environment to survive. Researchers predict that in response to the warmer temperatures, future generations of animals will have smaller body sizes but longer limbs, which are likely to increase an animals’ surface area and allow more body heat to be lost. Australian shorebirds in particular experience high temperatures and stronger sunlight due to their location, making them highly vulnerable to any increases in their environmental temperatures. This led Alexandra McQueen from Deakin University (Australia), with colleagues from institutions in Australia, Canada and Poland, along with community scientists from the Victorian Wader Study Group (VWSG) and the Australasian Wader Studies Group (AWSG) to determine whether the bodies of 25 northern and southern Australian shorebirds have altered in response to changes in short- and long-term summer temperatures.For approximately 50 years, more than 1100 community scientists from the VWSG and AWSG have been catching and marking shorebirds at northern and southern field sites in Australia, amassing a huge database of hundreds of thousands of observations. The volunteers also measured the birds’ body mass, wing length and bill length, recording them in the database. McQueen and colleagues then searched these records for species where at least ten measurements had been taken per decade, and over a period of at least 30 years, to find any short- and long-term changes in the shorebirds’ body size or shape, obtaining over 200,000 measurements for 25 shorebird species collected over a period of 46 years (1975–2021). They then gathered climate records from weather stations near to the shorebirds’ study sites and used temperature measurements from December, January and February to calculate an average maximum summer temperature for each year.After analysing the measurements, the team determined that over the 46-year period, the 25 species of shorebirds had shrunk – their body mass had declined by 0.62% per decade and their wing length reduced by 0.14% per decade, with the shortened wings more apparent in the southern populations. The researchers suggest that the birds’ shrinking body size may result in the birds having a larger surface area relative to their body mass to disperse more body heat as environmental temperatures become hotter. The shorebirds were also found to be shape-shifting – in that the shorebirds’ bills were longer, increasing by 0.05% per decade, but this was highly variable between different species and more pronounced in the northern populations. When factoring in summer temperatures, the researchers found that while the shorebirds’ bills lengthened throughout the 46-year period, they actually shortened for brief periods, directly after hotter summers.The researchers suggest alternative explanations for the shape-shifting phenomenon. The first may be that the bill changes allow the birds to disperse more body heat, as longer bills lose more heat to the surrounding environment. However, the changes in bill length varied substantially between species, possibly because of contrasting evolutionary pressures. For example, less food available after a hot summer or drought could stunt the growth of some birds, resulting in shorter bills. Alternatively, longer bills could help other shorebird species to dine well on prey buried deep in sand, allowing them to grow better and produce more chicks. Further research is needed to determine the exact reasons behind these shape-shifting observations.Overall, McQueen and colleagues provide evidence that climate change can lead to changes in body size and shape. The team also showed the benefit of such a large, long-term set of measurements produced by community scientists, which can be used by future biologists and policy makers when creating conservation plans and policies to protect threatened shorebird populations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».