Postfledging movements in birds: Do tit families track environmental phenology?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research on reproduction in animals has emphasized phenology and prey matching in the long term and on large spatial scales (e.g., linked to global climate change). We studied how individuals within one reproductive cycle and at small spatial scales may try to maximize access to food resources that vary in space and time. Herbivorous mammals are known to track favorable phenological stages of their food plants and move seasonally on the landscape. Whether phenology similarly affects spatial movements of birds on their breeding grounds is largely unknown. We studied postfledging movements of Blue Tits (Cyanistes caeruleus) and Great Tits (Parus major) when the young were escorted by parents during 19 to 43 days posthatching. This was done over 4 years in a 1.6-km2 woodland area in Norway in which an elevational gradient (105–266 m) caused a phenological delay in vegetation and peak abundance of caterpillar prey at the higher elevations. Postfledging movements were similar in the two tit species, with a mean distance moved from the nest to the site of observation of 134 m (range: 6–1,036, n = 104). On average, families moved upslope (mean = 4.8 m, range: -23 to 69 m; P = 0.002, n = 104), which suggests that they were able to track environmental phenology. However, most families did not move far from the nest site, possibly because the parents tried to defend a year-round territory and, therefore, could not afford to leave for longer periods.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".