Factors influencing fall departure phenology in migratory birds that bred in northeastern North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The phenology of migrating birds is shifting with climate change. For instance, short-distance migrants wintering in temperate regions tend to delay their migration in fall during spells of warmer temperature. However, some species do not show strong shifts, and the factors determining which species will react to temperature changes by delaying their migration are poorly known. In addition, it is not known whether a slower migration or a postponed departure creates the observed delays in fall migration because most studies occur far south of the boreal breeding areas making it difficult to separate those 2 mechanisms. We used 22 yr of data at a northern observatory in eastern North America, at the southern edge of the boreal forest, to examine how 21 short-distance migrants responded to changing temperatures. We investigated if those species responding to temperature share life-history features (i.e. diet, size, total migration distance, breeding habitat, timing of migration). The period of migration in each species was, by far, the most important factor predicting the response of a species to temperature. Eight of the 13 species migrating in October changed their migration onset with temperature (usually by delaying migration by 1–2 days/°C), while the migration timing of none of the 8 species migrating in September was dependent on temperature. Furthermore, the absence of a greater migration delay by birds breeding farther from the study site (i.e. Arctic-breeding birds) suggests the mechanism is a postponed departure rather than a slower migration. We conclude that temperature variations in late fall influence the conditions on the breeding grounds, so that birds still present at that time benefit more from postponing their departure in warm weather.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".