Annual Survival Rates of Wintering Sparrows: Assessing Demographic Consequences of Migration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The demographic consequences of migration have important implications for both evolutionary ecology and conservation biology. We investigated local survival rates for six populations of sparrows at a wintering site. Recent developments in mark–recapture statistics were applied to a 13 year dataset with large numbers of marked individuals (n = 1,632 to 4,394). The study taxa were closely related, and included one resident species (Song Sparrow [Melospiza melodia gouldii]), one short-distance migrant (“Puget Sound” White-crowned Sparrow [Zonotrichia leucophrys pugetensis]), two moderate-distance migrants (Lincoln's [Melospiza lincolnii] and Fox [Passerella iliaca] sparrow), and two long-distance migrants (“Gambel's” White-crowned [Zonotrichia leucophrys gambelii] and Golden-crowned [Zonotrichia atricapilla] sparrow). A literature review demonstrated a cline in fecundity among these sparrows: resident and short-distance migrants laid multiple clutches of few eggs, whereas long-distance migrants tended to produce one large clutch. Annual rates of local survival were low in the interval after first capture (<0.35), possibly because of variation in true survival, site-fidelity, presence of transients and heterogeneity of capture. Estimates of local survival among birds that returned at least once were more robust and were comparable among Song (0.558 ± 0.054 SE), Puget Sound White-crowned (0.461 ± 0.026), Lincoln's (0.456 ± 0.066), Fox (0.352 ± 0.0), Golden-crowned (0.422 ± 0.023) and Gambel's White-crowned (0.432 ± 0.0) sparrows. Estimates of survivorship for Lincoln's and Fox sparrows are among the first values available for those species. Local survival was not higher among resident than migratory taxa, nor did it covary with migration distance among migratory species. These results did not support the time-allocation hypothesis of Greenberg (1980), but are consistent with aspects of bet-hedging theory. While these analyses have potential implications for conservation of migratory birds, further work is required to establish whether these patterns are applicable to Neotropical migrants.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".