Multimodality in the individual size distributions of bird communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Aim Body size often plays a significant role in community assembly through its impacts on the life history and ecological attributes of species. Insight into the importance of size in structuring communities can be gained by examining the distribution of sizes of individuals [i.e. the individual size distribution (ISD) or size spectrum] in a community. ISDs have been studied extensively in aquatic and tree communities, but have received little attention in terrestrial animal communities. Here, we conduct the first macroecological analysis of ISDs in terrestrial animal communities to determine whether they show broad‐scale consistency in shape. Location North America, north of Mexico. Methods Using likelihood‐based methods and Gaussian mixture modelling, coupled with data from the Breeding Bird Survey and Christmas Bird Count, we determine whether the ISDs for thousands of breeding and wintering North American bird communities are: (1) monotonically decreasing, (2) unimodal or (3) multimodal. Results We find that avian ISDs are consistently multimodal, with most characterized by more than five modes in both breeding and wintering communities from local to continental scales. In addition, the positions of these modes along the size axis are remarkably consistent. Main conclusions The striking consistency in the ISD within bird communities, as with tree and aquatic communities, indicates that the ISD is an important and informative characterization of resource utilization within an ecological assemblage. The differences in shape of the ISD among these groups also suggest that differences in body size‐related constraints affect interactions within a group and with the environment. Our results confirm that avian assemblages do exhibit structure along the body size axis, and therefore it will be fruitful to explore this pattern in greater detail.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".