MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Conspecific attraction during establishment of Least Flycatcher clusters

2006· article· en· W2153460589 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alexander M. Mills, James D. Rising, Donald A. Jackson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Field Ornithology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlycatcherGeographyEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Some birds exhibit clustered breeding in which all-purpose territories are densely packed, leaving intervening but apparently suitable habitat unoccupied. Clustering could be ecologically driven by material resource patterns or socially driven by social or sexual benefits. Least Flycatchers (Empidonax minimus) breed in clusters in forests over much of North America. In 2003, we mapped all Least Flycatcher clusters along 18.7 km of secondary roads in central Ontario. In May 2004, we broadcast recorded territorial song in five areas not used by Least Flycatchers in 2003, but in the same study area. During settlement, we found Least Flycatchers in the established clusters, in three of five treatment sites, and in one nontreatment site. However, no pairs were noted at the treatment sites, and no males ultimately remained. One male did, however, defend a territory at a treatment site for 6 d. Despite limited success at attracting Least Flycatchers to new locations, manipulating settlement using social cues could be a useful management tool for some species. Algunas aves muestran agregaciones reproductivas en donde el territorio de todo propósito, está densamente conglomerado, aparentemente, dejando hábitat adecuado sin ocupar. Las agregaciones pueden ser ecológicamente dirigidas en el sentido de usar mejores recursos materiales o socialmente dirigidas en el sentido de beneficios sociales o sexuales. El papamoscas Empidonax minimus se congrega para reproducirse en bosques, virtualmente a todo lo largo de Norte América. En el 2003, marcamos en mapas todas las agregaciones de estas aves que se encontraron a lo largo de 18.7 km de caminos secundarios en la parte central de Ontario, Canadá. En mayo de 2004 transmitimos canciones territoriales que habíamos grabado en cinco áreas que no habían sido utilizados por los papamoscas durante el 2003, pero contenidas dentro de la misma área de estudio. Durante el asentamiento, encontramos papamoscas establecidos en agregaciones, en tres de las cinco localidades tratadas (totalizando 10 días), y en una localidad no-tratada. Sin embargo, no se encontraron parejas en las áreas tratadas y no se quedaron en la localidad machos cortejando. Una sola ave defendió un territorio en una de las áreas tratadas por seis días. No obstante al éxito limitado en atraer aves para formar grupos, utilizando pistas sociales, este pudiera ser de utilidad como herramienta de manejo.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Field OrnithologySame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207