Spring temperature, clutch initiation date and duck nest success: a test of the mismatch hypothesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Increases in average global temperature during the twentieth century have prompted calls for research on the effect of temperature variation on avian population dynamics. Particular attention has been paid to the hypothesis that increased temperatures may affect a species' ability to shift their breeding efforts to match the phenology of their prey, and thus result in reduced reproductive success (the 'mismatch hypothesis'). 2. We used data from a long-term study of breeding ducks to investigate how duck nest success varied with clutch initiation date, and to test whether spring temperature affected this relationship in a manner consistent with the mismatch hypothesis. We modelled five possible functional forms of how nest success might vary with clutch initiation date and spring temperature, and used an information-theoretic approach to determine which model best described the nesting outcomes of five dabbling duck species nesting in Saskatchewan, Canada. 3. Probability of nest success for the five species did not vary strongly with clutch initiation date, and we found evidence consistent with the mismatch hypothesis for one species, northern pintail Anas acuta, although weight of evidence was weak. 4. Overall nest success of all five species was positively associated with spring temperature. These results suggest that increasing spring temperature alone (within the range observed in this study) may not affect nest success in a manner that would result in lower populations of breeding ducks.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".