Evaluating broad scale patterns among related species using resource experiments in tropical hummingbirds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A challenge in community ecology is connecting biogeographic patterns with local scale observations. In Neotropical hummingbirds, closely related species often co-occur less frequently than expected (overdispersion) when compared to a regional species pool. While this pattern has been attributed to interspecific competition, it is important to connect these findings with local scale mechanisms of coexistence. We measured the importance of the presence of competitors and the availability of resources on selectivity at experimental feeders for Andean hummingbirds along a wide elevation gradient. Selectivity was measured as the time a bird fed at a feeder with a high sucrose concentration when presented with feeders of both low and high sucrose concentrations. Resource selection was measured using time-lapse cameras to identity which floral resources were used by each hummingbird species. We found that the increased abundance of preferred resources surrounding the feeder best explained increased species selectivity, and that related hummingbirds with similar morphology chose similar floral resources. We did not find strong support for direct agonism based on differences in body size or phylogenetic relatedness in predicting selectivity. These results suggest closely related hummingbird species have overlapping resource niches, and that the intensity of interspecific competition is related to the abundance of those preferred resources. If these competitive interactions have negative demographic effects, our results could help explain the pattern of phylogenetic overdispersion observed at regional scales.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".