Habitat specialist birds disperse farther and are more migratory than habitat generalist birds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some theories predict habitat specialists should be less dispersive and migratory than generalists, while other theories predict the opposite. We evaluated the cross-species relationship between the degree of habitat specialization and dispersal and migration status in 101 bird species breeding in North America and the United Kingdom, using empirical estimates of the degree of habitat specialization from breeding bird surveys and mean dispersal distance estimates from large-scale mark-recapture studies. We found that habitat specialists dispersed farther than habitat generalists, and full migrants had more specialized habitat than partial migrants or resident species. To our knowledge this is the first large-scale, multi-species study to demonstrate a positive relationship between the degree of habitat specialization and dispersal, and it is opposite to the pattern found for invertebrates. This finding is particularly interesting because it suggests that trade-offs between the degree of habitat specialization and dispersal ability are not conserved across taxonomic groups. This cautions against extrapolation of trait co-occurrence from one species group to another. In particular, it suggests that efforts aimed at conserving the most habitat-specialist temperate-breeding birds will not lead to conservation of the most dispersal-limited species.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".