How competitive trade-offs limit elevation ranges for temperate-breeding hummingbirds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One intriguing hypothesis about range limits of species along environmental gradients is that interspecific interference competition limits the activity of the better exploitation competitor. The hypothesis works if the costs of interference and (or) exploitation vary along the gradient. However, in some systems, species turnover happens over gradients that may be too short to induce changes in costs associated with competition. An example is breeding Black-chinned Hummingbirds (Archilochus alexandri (Bourcier and Mulsant, 1846)) and Broad-tailed Hummingbirds (Selasphorus platycercus (Swainson, 1827)) in western Colorado, USA, where turnover happens over ∼400 m. We recorded foraging and chasing activity of the two species at feeders and found that their foraging activity changed with elevation but interspecific competition did not. Because the foraging activity of the two species changed inversely with each other, it may be the presence of Black-chinned Hummingbirds rather than active interference that limits the activity of Broad-tailed Hummingbirds. Importantly, the relationship between foraging activity and elevation depended on the distance between the two feeders, which shows that relationships with elevation are contingent on other factors such as spatial distribution of resources. Our results suggest that interspecific differences in flight performance are not manifested over the short elevation gradient and do not account for changes in activity. Flight performance may indirectly affect patterns in breeding-season activity by influencing how species interact with other competitors during the nonbreeding season.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".