Behavioural flexibility predicts invasion success in birds introduced to New Zealand
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A fundamental question in ecology is whether there are evolutionary characteristics of species that make some better than others at invading new communities. In birds, nesting habits, sexually selected traits, migration, clutch size and body mass have been suggested as important variables, but behavioural flexibility is another obvious trait that has received little attention. Behavioural flexibility allows animals to respond more rapidly to environmental changes and can therefore be advantageous when invading novel habitats. Behavioural flexibility is linked to relative brain size and, for foraging, has been operationalised as the number of innovations per taxon reported in the short note sections of ornithology journals. Here, we use data on avian species introduced to New Zealand and test the link between forebrain size, feeding innovation frequency and invasion success. Relative brain size was, as expected, a significant predictor of introduction success, after removing the effect of introduction effort. Species with relatively larger brains tended to be better invaders than species with smaller ones. Introduction effort, migratory strategy and mode of juvenile development were also significant in the models. Pair‐wise comparisons of closely related species indicate that successful invaders also showed a higher frequency of foraging innovations in their region of origin. This study provides the first evidence in vertebrates of a general set of traits, behavioural flexibility, that can potentially favour invasion success.
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.
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) | 0.003 | 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 it