Stable isotopes can be used to infer the overwintering locations of prebreeding marine birds in the Canadian Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although assessments of winter carryover effects on fitness‐related breeding parameters are vital for determining the links between environmental variation and fitness, direct methods of determining overwintering distributions (e.g., electronic tracking) can be expensive, limiting the number of individuals studied. Alternatively, stable isotope analysis in specific tissues can be used as an indirect means of determining individual overwintering areas of residency. Although increasingly used to infer the overwintering distributions of terrestrial birds, stable isotopes have been used less often to infer overwintering areas of marine birds. Using Arctic‐breeding common eiders, we test the effectiveness of an integrated stable isotope approach (13‐carbon, 15‐nitrogen, and 2‐hydrogen) to infer overwintering locations. Knowing the overwinter destinations of eiders from tracking studies at our study colony at East Bay Island, Nunavut, we sampled claw and blood tissues at two known overwintering locations, Nuuk, Greenland, and Newfoundland, Canada. These two locations yielded distinct tissue‐specific isotopic profiles. We then compared the isotope profiles of tissues collected from eiders upon their arrival at our breeding colony, and used a k‐means cluster analysis approach to match arriving eiders to an overwintering group. Samples from the claws of eiders were most effective for determining overwinter origin, due to this tissue's slow growth rate relative to the 40‐day turnover rate of blood. Despite taking an integrative approach using multiple isotopes, k‐means cluster analysis was most effective when using 13‐carbon alone to assign eiders to an overwintering group. Our research demonstrates that it is possible to use stable isotope analysis to assign an overwintering location to a marine bird. There are few examples of the effective use of this technique on a marine bird at this scale; we provide a framework for applying this technique to detect changes in the migration phenology of birds' responses to rapid changes in the Arctic.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".