Nightjars may adjust breeding phenology to compensate for mismatches between moths and moonlight
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Phenology match–mismatch usually refers to the extent of an organism's ability to match reproduction with peaks in food availability, but when mismatch occurs, it may indicate a response to another selective pressure. We assess the value of matching reproductive timing to multiple selective pressures for a migratory lunarphilic aerial insectivore bird, the whip‐poor‐will (Antrostomus vociferus). We hypothesize that a whip‐poor‐will's response to shifts in local phenology may be constrained by long annual migrations and a foraging mode that is dependent on both benign weather and the availability of moonlight. To test this, we monitored daily nest survival and overall reproductive success relative to food availability and moon phase in the northern part of whip‐poor‐will's breeding range. We found that moth abundance, and potentially temperature and moonlight, may all have a positive influence on daily chick survival rates and that the lowest chick survival rates for the period between hatching and fledging occurred when hatch was mismatched with both moths and moonlight. However, rather than breeding too late for peak moth abundance, the average first brood hatch date actually preceded the peak moth abundance and occurred during a period with slightly higher available moonlight than the period of peak food abundance. As a result, a low individual survival rate was partially compensated for by initiating more nesting attempts. This suggests that nightjars were able to adjust their breeding phenology in such a way that the costs of mismatch with food supply were at least partially balanced by a longer breeding 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".