Causes and consequences of distribution patterns in a migratory songbird across its geographic range
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ideal distribution hypothesis states that territorial animals identify habitats with ideal habitat suitability and alter their settlement patterns accordingly. This hypothesis assumes no cost of migrating to a more profitable patch once the current one becomes less profitable. Another underlying assumption is that individuals only use current information while deciding where to breed. To evaluate these assumptions and resultant alternative hypotheses, we studied Ovenbird ( Seiurus aurocapilla (L., 1766)) territories during 2000–2001 in six northern hardwood tracts within a landscape composed of wetlands, regenerating stands, small farms and roads. We incorporated data from our own study and from published studies across the Ovenbird geographic range, using an information-theoretic approach. Contrary to the ideal distribution hypothesis, Ovenbird territory density increased with upland openings, but density was similar across clearcut-edge-distance and forest-thinning categories. Relationships between reproduction and territory density were uncertain and therefore provided little evidence against the ideal free distribution hypothesis, but there was some evidence in favor of the alternative costly migration and ideal dominance hypotheses from the analysis of our own data and the meta-analysis, respectively. Finally, territories became denser when fecundity and pairing success were high during the previous year, and this supports the public information hypothesis. We recommend using measures of reproductive success in conjunction with territory density when assessing population status.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".