The Use of Nocturnal Flights for Barrier Crossing in a Diurnally Migrating Songbird: Implications for Our Understanding of Fly-and-Forage Migration Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: The migration patterns of land birds can generally be divided into those species that migrate principally during the day and those that migrate during the night. Some species may show individual plasticity in the use of day or night flight, particularly when crossing large, open-water or desert barriers. However, individual plasticity in circadian patterns of migratory flights in diurnal songbirds that use a fly-and-forage migration strategy has never been investigated. Methods: We used high precision GPS tracking of a diurnal, migratory swallow Purple martin, (Progne subis), to determine whether individuals were flexible in their spring migration strategies to include some night flight, particularly at barrier crossing.Results: We found that individuals made large (sometimes >1000 km), open-water crossings of the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico that included the use of night flight. Some birds-initiated barrier crossing flights at night, demonstrating that night flight is not only used to complete barrier crossings but may confer other advantages for diurnal birds. All birds also used some, shorter night flights when making overland flights not associated with barrier crossing. Birds were more likely to initiate water crossings with supportive northward winds, and preliminary data suggest that moonlight may influence nighttime migratory movements.Conclusions: Overall, our results demonstrate an unexpected high degree of individual plasticity in migration strategies on a circadian scale in a ‘diurnal’ songbird and suggest that barrier crossing at night may complement fly-and-forage migration strategies.
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".