A global meta‐analysis reveals higher variation in breeding phenology in urban birds than in their non‐urban neighbours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cities pose a major ecological challenge for wildlife worldwide. Phenotypic variation, which can result from underlying genetic variation or plasticity, is an important metric to understand eco-evolutionary responses to environmental change. Recent work suggests that urban populations might have higher levels of phenotypic variation than non-urban counterparts. This prediction, however, has never been tested across species nor over a broad geographical range. Here, we conducted a meta-analysis of the avian literature to compare urban versus non-urban means and variation in phenology (i.e. lay date) and reproductive effort (i.e. clutch size, number of fledglings). First, we show that urban populations reproduce earlier and have smaller broods than non-urban conspecifics. Second, we show that urban populations have higher phenotypic variation in laying date than non-urban populations. This result arises from differences between populations within breeding seasons, conceivably due to higher landscape heterogeneity in urban habitats. These findings reveal a novel effect of urbanisation on animal life histories with potential implications for species adaptation to urban environments (which will require further investigation). The higher variation in phenology in birds subjected to urban disturbance could result from plastic responses to a heterogeneous environment, or from higher genetic variation in phenology, possibly linked to higher evolutionary potential.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".