Timing of breeding, peak food availability, and effects of mismatch on chick growth in birds nesting in the High Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In seasonal environments, breeding events must be synchronized with resource peaks to ensure production and growth of offspring. As changes in climate may affect trophic levels differentially, we hypothesized that a lack of synchrony between chick hatch and resource peaks could decrease growth rates in chicks of shorebirds nesting in the High Arctic. To test this hypothesis, we compared growth curves of chicks hatching in synchrony with peak periods of food abundance to those hatching outside of these peak periods. We also tested for changes in lay dates of shorebirds in the Canadian Arctic using recent and historical data. Mean daily temperatures during the laying period increased since the 1950s by up to 1.5 °C, and changes in lay dates were apparent for three shorebird species, yet differences in median lay dates between 1954 and 2005–2008 were only significant for White-rumped Sandpiper ( Calidris fuscicollis (Viellot, 1819)). During 2005–2008, there was only 1 year of relatively high synchrony between hatch and resource peaks. Asynchrony between hatch and peaks in Tipulidae biomass reduced growth rates in chicks of Baird’s Sandpiper (Calidris bairdii (Coues, 1861)). As anticipated changes in climate may decouple phenological events, the effects of asynchrony on growth rates of arctic-nesting birds warrant further investigation.
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".