Causes and Consequences of Tree Swallow (Tachycineta Bicolor) Dispersal in Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Poor breeding success often increases dispersal, but there is conflicting evidence about the putative adaptive benefits of dispersal behavior. Thus, observational and experimental data were analyzed to test whether breeding success (number of young fledging) influenced breeding and natal dispersal by Tree Swallows (Tachycineta bicolor), using information from 1,302 nests over 12 years. Success was experimentally altered at 291 randomly selected nest boxes by adding or removing three eggs (representing ±50% of modal clutch size). Finally, we tested whether dispersal distance, controlling for antecedent breeding success, had consequences for subsequent breeding success. Contrary to predictions, (1) adult and natal dispersal distances were not significantly influenced by breeding success, and (2) manipulating success had no effect on either breeding or natal dispersal. Moreover, after controlling for antecedent breeding success, dispersal distance had no influence on subsequent breeding success. In most years of our study, >85% of nest initiations produced at least one fledgling, and individual boxes did not consistently have low or high fledgling production. Hence, swallows may have little to gain by dispersing out of our nest-box grid, and box-specific success did not provide a reliable cue about where to disperse within the grid. Thus, remaining in the grid for subsequent breeding attempts, regardless of fledgling production, could be interpreted as adaptive. Nonetheless, most adults remained close to the nest they had used in previous years, which suggests that some unmeasured influence, such as social interactions among neighbors, led to nonrandom dispersal.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".