Breeding systems, climate, and the evolution of migration in shorebirds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Migratory behavior incurs energetic costs that may influence the time and energy available for reproduction including territory establishment, courtship, pair formation, incubation, and brood care. Conversely pair formation and parental care may leave less time and energy available for migration and other nonbreeding behaviors. Therefore, natural selection favoring migratory behavior may influence breeding system evolution and vice versa. We used phylogenetic comparative methods to investigate relationships between migration distance and the wide diversity of breeding systems in shorebirds (sandpipers, plovers and allies). Consistent with previous studies, we show that long-distance migration is associated with reduced male care across shorebird species. We then use directional phylogenetic analyses to test whether migration distances have tended to increase or decrease over time and whether such evolutionary changes have preceded or followed changes in parental care. We show that evolutionary transitions from short-distance migration to long-distance migration have coevolved with changes from full biparental care to reduced male care. Furthermore, our directional analyses suggest that increments in migration distance are more likely to have preceded reductions in male care than vice versa. We also show that male polygamy is associated with northern breeding latitudes when the nonbreeding latitude is controlled statistically. Although this suggests that mating systems, parental care, and migration have more complex relationships than previously thought, our results are consistent with the hypothesis that migration influences breeding system evolution.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".