Do northern forest bird communities show more ecological plasticity than southern forest bird communities in eastern Canada?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractIt has been suggested that bird species in northern boreal forests would be more plastic in their ecology than southern species due to the dynamic nature of boreal forest ecosystems. To test this prediction, we quantified a plasticity index of nesting, feeding and habitat use in forest birds of eastern Canadian coniferous forests between 41°- 54° N. We determined that feeding plasticity in bird communities increases latitudinally but nesting and habitat use showed little pattern. Neither evolutionary origin, i. e., palearctic versus nearctic, nor fauna type, i. e., boreal versus non-boreal birds, explained the feeding trend. Rather, the pattern appears to result from the numerical dominance in northern forests of three species with high feeding plasticity: dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata), and ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula).Résumé:On a déjà émis l'hypothèse que les oiseaux des forêts boréales nordiques montrent plus de plasticité dans leur écologie que les espèces des régions méridionales en raison de la nature dynamique des écosystèmes de la forêt boréale. Afin de vérifier cette hypothèse chez les oiseaux des forêts conifériennes de l'Est du Canada, nous avons établi un indice de plasticité pour la nidification, l'alimentation et l'utilisation de l'habitat. Seuls les oiseaux nichant à des latitudes comprises entre le 41e et 54e degré de latitude nord ont été pris en considération. Chez les oiseaux, la plasticité d'alimentation augmente avec la latitude. Par contre, nous n'avons observé aucune tendance nette pour la nidification et l'utilisation de l'habitat. Il n'est pas possible d'expliquer le patron d'alimentation des oiseaux à partir de l'origine évolutive (paléarctique ou néarctique) ou encore du type faunique (boréal ou non boréal). On croît plutôt que ce patron est le résultat d'une dominance numérique dans les forêts nordiques de trois espèces présentant une grande plasticité au niveau de l'alimentation : le junco ardoisé (Junco hyemalis), la paruline à croupion jaune (Dendroica coronata) et le roitelet à couronne rubis (Regulus calendula).Key Words: DisturbanceGeneralistNorthern forestsPlasticitySpecialistMots-clés:: Espèce généralisteEspèce spécialisteForêts nordiquesOiseauxPerturbationPlasticitéAmerican Ornithologists' Union2003
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".