Evolution of winter molting strategies in European and North American migratory passerines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Molt is critical for birds as it replaces damaged feathers and worn plumage, enhancing flight performance, thermoregulation, and communication. In passerines, molt generally occurs on the breeding grounds during the postbreeding period once a year. However, some species of migrant passerines that breed in the Nearctic and Western Palearctic regions have evolved different molting strategies that involve molting on the overwintering grounds. Some species forego molt on the breeding grounds and instead complete their prebasic molt on the overwintering grounds. Other species molt some or all feathers a second time (prealternate molt) during the overwintering period. Using phylogenetic analyses, we explored the potential drivers of the evolution of winter molts in Nearctic and Western Palearctic breeding passerines. Our results indicate an association between longer photoperiods and the presence of prebasic and prealternate molts on the overwintering grounds for both Nearctic and Western Palearctic species. We also found a relationship between prealternate molt and generalist and water habitats for Western Palearctic species. Finally, the complete prealternate molt in Western Palearctic passerines was linked to longer days on the overwintering grounds and longer migration distance. Longer days may favor the evolution of winter prebasic molt by increasing the time window when birds can absorb essential nutrients for molt. Alternatively, for birds undertaking a prealternate molt at the end of the overwintering period, longer days may increase exposure to feather-degrading ultra-violet radiation, necessitating the replacement of feathers. Our study underlines the importance of the overwintering grounds in the critical process of molt for many passerines that breed in the Nearctic and Western Palearctic regions.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".