Partial migration in birds: tests of three hypotheses in a tropical lekking frugivore
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Partially migratory species provide opportunities to understand which ecological factors cause some animals to migrate when others remain resident year round. Partial migration in birds has been explained by the dominance, arrival-time, and body-size hypotheses. 2. Testing these hypotheses has proven difficult due to the similarities of the predictions they make in temperate-breeding long-distance migrants. In tropical altitudinal migrants, however, these hypotheses make different predictions regarding the sex, age, and condition of migrants and residents. 3. Among white-ruffed manakins in Costa Rica, young birds were not more likely to migrate (as predicted by the dominance hypothesis), nor were females more likely to migrate (as predicted by the arrival-time hypothesis). All condition-related variables interacted with sex, together explaining much of the variation in migratory behaviour. 4. I re-articulate the body-size hypothesis in the context of tropical altitudinal bird migration, focusing explicitly on how limited foraging opportunities and differences in individual condition affect fasting ability during torrential rains. Despite ample food, the smallest birds or those stressed by parasites or moult may risk starvation at breeding elevations due to a reduction in foraging time. These results highlight how intrinsic and extrinsic factors may interact to produce observed patterns of within- and among-species variation in migratory behaviour.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".