Autumn Dispersal and Winter Residency do not Confer Reproductive Advantages on Female Spruce Grouse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many, but not all, juvenile Spruce Grouse (Falcipennis canadensis) disperse from their natal range in autumn. In spring shortly before breeding, some of these autumn dispersers will disperse a second time from their winter range, whereas others make their first dispersal from natal range. I postulated that dispersing first in autumn provides greater experience on a potential breeding area than immigrating to the breeding area in spring. I predicted that autumn-immigrant females would show a higher percentage of females nesting, would nest earlier, and would produce more juveniles into late summer than would immigrants in spring. Data were available for females on three areas widely spaced across their geographic range. Immigrants contributed most to production. Parameters did not vary greatly among study areas. Combining all areas, 68% of autumn immigrants and 69% of spring immigrants were known to nest, mean hatch dates relative to the annual median differed by less than 1 day, and spring immigrants produced more juveniles surviving into late summer than did autumn immigrants (1.1 versus 0.7 juveniles per female). Hence, there is no evidence yet that autumn dispersal directly confers a reproductive advantage for female Spruce Grouse. Results underscore a perplexing question: if site-specific conditions stimulate winter residents to emigrate, why do the spring immigrants that replace them fare so well? La Dispersión Otoñal y la Residencia Invernal no Confieren una Ventaja Reproductiva a las Hembras de Falcipennis canadensis Resumen. Una gran parte de los individuos juveniles de Falcipennis canadensis se dispersan desde sus sitios natales en el otoño. En la primavera, justo antes del apareo, algunos de estos individuos dispersados en el otoño se dispersan nuevamente desde sus sitios de invernada mientras que otros se dispersan por primera vez desde sus sitios natales. Mi postulado fue que la dispersión inicial de otoño confiere mayor experiencia en cuanto al área potencial de apareo en comparación con aquellos que emigran al área de reproducción en la primavera. Mi predicción fue que las hembras que emigran en otoño representarían un mayor porcentaje de las hembras anidando, anidarían más temprano y producirían más individuos juveniles a finales del verano que aquellas que emigran en la primavera. Conté con datos disponibles para hembras en tres áreas ampliamente espaciadas a lo largo de su rango geográfico de distribución. Los inmigrantes contribuyeron más a la producción. Los parámetros no presentaron mayor variación entre las áreas de estudio. Combinando todas las áreas, el 68% de los inmigrates otoñales y el 69% de los inmigrantes primaverales anidaron. La diferencia entre las fechas promedio de nacimiento y la mediana anual fue menos de 1 día y los inmigrantes primaverales produjeron más individuos juveniles que sobrevivieron hasta finales del verano que los inmigrantes otoñales (1.1 versus 0.7 individuos por hembra). Por lo tanto, aún no existe evidencia de que la dispersión otoñal le confiere una ventaja reproductiva a las hembras de F. canadensis. Estos resultados revelan una pregunta fascinante: si las condiciones particulares del sitio estimulan a los residentes invernales a emigrar, ¿por qué los inmigrantes primaverales que los reemplazan se desenvuelven tan bien?
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".