Timing of breeding and environmental factors as determinants of reproductive performance of tree swallows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decreased reproductive success among birds breeding later in the season is a common pattern in temperate environments, although the underlying mechanisms remain unresolved. The quality hypothesis suggests that high-quality individuals can begin breeding earlier in the season than poorer quality parents, and are also able to invest more in reproduction. Alternatively, the date hypothesis suggests that reduced success among late birds is due to some correlate of date, such as decreased food abundance or offspring value. To test these hypotheses, I manipulated the date that tree swallows, Tachycineta bicolor (Vieillot, 1808), raised offspring by swapping clutches among nests so that birds were raising young either earlier or later than intended, and compared reproductive performance with control nests. My results showed that fledging success was related to the date hypothesis, with later birds being less successful in raising offspring than early breeding birds. Size and mass of offspring were not explained by either hypothesis, but rather by weather conditions experienced prior to measurements being taken. My results highlight the importance of events such as periods of inclement weather that can have significant impacts on offspring quality independently of both date of breeding and parental quality.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".