Plasticity in timing of avian breeding in response to spring temperature differs between early and late nesting species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plasticity for breeding dates may influence population vulnerability to climate change via phenological mismatch between an organism's life cycle requirements and resource availability in occupied environments. Some life history traits may constrain plasticity, however there have been remarkably few comparisons of how closely-related species, differing in key traits, respond to common phenology gradients. We compared population- and individual-level plasticity in clutch initiation dates (CID) in response to spring temperature among five duck species with early- to late-season nesting life histories. Plasticity was strongest in females of the earliest breeding species (common goldeneye [Bucephala clangula], mallard [Anas platyrhynchos], and gadwall [Mareca strepera]), whereas late-nesting lesser scaup (Aythya affinis) and white-winged scoter (Melanitta fusca deglandi) did not respond. These results contrast with previous work in other bird families that suggested late-breeders are generally more flexible. Nevertheless, late-breeding species exhibited annual variation in mean CID, suggesting response to other environmental factors unrelated to spring temperature. Goldeneye and gadwall females varied in their strength of individual plasticity ('individual × environment' interactions) and goldeneye and scoter females showed evidence of interannual repeatability of CID. Fitness consequences of CID plasticity in response to spring phenology, including trophic mechanisms and population consequences, warrant investigation.
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 | 0.000 | 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".