Ecological correlates of mate fidelity in two Arctic-breeding sandpipers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monogamous birds exhibit considerable interspecific variation in rates of mate fidelity between years, but the reasons for this variation are still poorly understood. In a 4-year study carried out in western Alaska, mate-fidelity rates in Semipalmated Sandpipers (Calidris pusilla; mate fidelity was 47% among pairs where at least one mate returned and 94% among pairs where both mates returned) were substantially higher than in Western Sandpipers (Calidris mauri; 25 and 67%, respectively), despite the similar breeding biology of these sibling species. Divorce was not a response to nesting failure in Western Sandpipers, and mate change had no effect on the reproductive performance of either species. Nor were mate-fidelity rates related to differential rates of breeding dispersal, because the species did not differ in site fidelity. Reunited pairs and males that changed mates showed strong site tenacity, while females that changed mates moved farther. Differences in local survival rates or habitat are also unlikely to explain mate fidelity, since the two species did not differ in local survival rates, ϕ (Western Sandpipers: ϕ hat = 0.57 ± 0.05 (mean ± SE), Semipalmated Sandpipers: ϕ hat = 0.66 ± 0.06), and they bred in the same area, sometimes using the same nest cups. Although we were able to reject the above explanations, it was not possible to determine whether mate retention was lower in Western Sandpipers than in Semipalmated Sandpipers because of interspecific differences in mating tactics, time constraints imposed by migration distance, or a combination of these factors. Western Sandpipers exhibited greater sexual size dimorphism, but also migrated for shorter distances and tended to nest earlier and more asynchronously than Semipalmated Sandpipers. Finally, we show that conventional methods underestimate divorce rates, and interspecific comparisons may be biased if breeding-dispersal and recapture rates are not considered.
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".