A meta-analysis of global avian survival across species and latitude
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Tropical birds are purported to be longer lived than temperate species of similar size, but it has not been shown whether avian survival rates covary with a latitudinal gradient worldwide. Here, we perform a global-scale meta-analysis to investigate the extent of the latitudinal survival gradient. We modeled survival as a function of latitude for the separate northern and southern hemispheres, and considered phylogenetic relationships and extrinsic (climate) and intrinsic (life history) predictors hypothesized to moderate these effects. Using a database of 1,004 estimates from 246 studies of avian survival, we demonstrate that in general a latitudinal survival gradient exists in the northern hemisphere, is dampened or absent for southern hemisphere species, and that survival rates of passerine birds largely account for these trends. We found no indication that the extrinsic climate factors were better predictors of survival than latitude alone, but including species’ intrinsic traits improved model predictions. Notably, species with smaller clutch size and larger body mass showed higher survival. Our results illustrate that while some tropical birds may be longer lived than their temperate counterparts, the shape of the latitude-survival gradient differs by geographic region and is strongly influenced by species’ intrinsic traits.
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 | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".