Assessment of individual and conspecific reproductive success as determinants of breeding dispersal of female tree swallows: A capture–recapture approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breeding dispersal is a key process of population structure and dynamics and is often triggered by an individual's breeding failure. In both colonial and territorial birds, reproductive success of conspecifics (RSc) can also lead individuals to change breeding sites after a failure on a site. Yet, few studies have simultaneously investigated the independent contribution of individual reproductive success (RSi) and of RSc on dispersal decision. Here, we develop a modeling framework to disentangle the effects of RSi and RSc on demographic parameters, while accounting for imperfect individual detection and other confounding factors such as age or dispersal behavior in the previous year. Using a 10-year capture-recapture dataset composed of 1,595 banded tree swallows, we assessed the effects of nonmanipulated RSi and RSc on female breeding dispersal in this semicolonial passerine. Dispersal was strongly driven by RSi, but not by RSc. Unsuccessful females were 9.5-2.5 times more likely to disperse than successful ones, depending if they had dispersed or not in the previous year, respectively. Unsuccessful females were also three times less likely to be detected than successful ones. Contrary to theoretical and empirical studies, RSc did not drive the decision to disperse but influenced the selection of the following breeding site once dispersal had been initiated. Because detection of individuals was driven by RSi, which was positively correlated to RSc, assuming a perfect detection as in previous studies may have lead us to conclude that RSc affected dispersal patterns, yet our approach corrected for this bias. Overall, our results suggest that the value and use of RSc as public information to guide dispersal decisions are likely dictated by multiple ecological determinants, such as landscape structure and extent, if this cue is indeed used.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".