MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283794182 · doi:10.3389/fevo.2022.846975

Riverine Barriers as Obstacles to Dispersal in Amazonian Birds

2022· article· en· W4283794182 on OpenAlexafffund
Luciano N. Naka, Bruna M. da Silva Costa, Gisiane Rodrigues Lima, Santiago Claramunt

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Ecology and Evolution · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ontario MuseumUniversity of Toronto
FundersFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do AmazonasConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoInstituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da BiodiversidadeNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversidade Federal do Amazonas
KeywordsBiological dispersalAmazonianEcologyHabitatAmazon rainforestShoreEcological nicheBiologyTurtle (robot)GeographyFisheryDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Amazonian rivers represent known barriers for avian dispersal, reducing gene flow and enhancing differentiation. Despite the importance of rivers in the avian evolutionary process, we have made only minor advances in understanding the limitations imposed by rivers on flying birds. To fill that gap, we conducted dispersal-challenge experiments over water, assessing the flying capabilities of 84 tropical bird species of 22 different avian families. We mist-netted and released 484 birds from a stationary boat on the Rio Branco, northern Amazonia, at increasing distances from the shore, including 249 individuals at 100; 219 at 200; 8 at 300; and 5 at 400 m. A successful trial was represented by a bird reaching the riverbank, whereas a failure would refer to birds not reaching the shore and landing on the water, when they were rescued by our team. Our main goal was to understand if the outcome in the experiments could be predicted by (i) phylogenetic constraints, (ii) morphology (body mass and wing shape), (iii) flight speed, (iv) ecological preferences (stratum, habitat, and river-island specialization), and (v) psychological reluctance to fly. Nearly two thirds of the individuals (332) were successful in reaching the riverbank, whereas 152 failed. We found significant differences among lineages. Whereas seven avian families succeeded in all of the trials, two families (antbirds and wrens) were particularly bad dispersers (<40% success). The hand-wing index (HWI) was the single most powerful predictor of trial success. Flying speed was also a significant predictor of success. Overall, ecological attributes had a low explanatory power. Only forest stratum preference had a significant, although weak, effect on dispersal ability: canopy- and ground-dwellers performed better than understory birds. However, we found no effect of habitat preference or river-island specialization on dispersal ability. Our speed estimates for 64 bird species are among the first produced for the tropics and suggest slower flying speeds than those reported from temperate migratory birds. Although birds showed behavioral differences when presented with the opportunity to fly away from the boat, we found no evidence that their reluctance to fly could predict the outcome in the experiments. This represents the first experimental study evaluating the riverine effect through dispersal ability of Amazonian birds, providing important insights to better understand dispersal limitations provided by riverine barriers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Ecology and EvolutionSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207