Latitudinal gradients in some, but not all, avian life history traits extend into the Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Latitudinal variation in avian life history strategies is well documented. Clutch size and nest success tend to increase with latitude, whereas longevity and developmental periods have been argued to decrease with latitude. However, these patterns are largely based on interspecific comparisons of species breeding at tropical and temperate latitudes. We compared the life history of Yellow WarblersSetophaga petechiabreeding in arctic habitat at the northern extent of their range, in Inuvik,NWT(68°N), Canada, with those breeding in temperate habitat in Revelstoke,BC(50°N), and use data from 21 populations spanning 0–68°N to evaluate latitudinal trends in life history traits from tropical to arctic habitats. Females breeding in Inuvik laid first clutches that were slightly (although not significantly) larger and had higher nest success, which resulted in higher annual productivity compared with their low‐ latitude counterparts. Apparent adult survival rates were only marginally lower in Inuvik than in Revelstoke, whereas incubation and nestling periods in the arctic were similar to our temperate site. When comparing life history traits across the Yellow Warbler breeding range, we observed increases in clutch sizes and nest success with increasing latitude that appeared to be associated with declines in adult survival, though this relationship was weakened by the addition of our arctic site. We detected more moderate declines in incubation and nestling periods with increasing latitude. As we observed latitudinal variation in some life history traits, but not a consistent transition of traits associated with a shift from a slow to fast life history from tropical to arctic latitudes, our study suggests that the expectation for a general shift in life history traits may be over‐simplified.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".