Network structure of avian mixed-species flocks decays with elevation and latitude across the Andes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Birds in mixed-species flocks benefit from greater foraging efficiency and reduced predation, but also face costs related to competition and activity matching. Because this cost-benefit trade-off is context-dependent (e.g. abiotic conditions and habitat quality), the structure of flocks is expected to vary along elevational, latitudinal and disturbance gradients. Specifically, we predicted that the connectivity and cohesion of flocking networks would (i) decline towards tropical latitudes and lower elevations, where competition and activity matching costs are higher, and (ii) increase with lower forest cover and greater human disturbance. We analysed the structure of 84 flock networks across the Andes and assessed the effect of elevation, latitude, forest cover and human disturbance on network characteristics. We found that Andean flocks are overall open-membership systems (unstructured), though the extent of network structure varied across gradients. Elevation was the main predictor of structure, with more connected and less modular flocks upslope. As expected, flocks in areas with higher forest cover were less cohesive, with better defined flock subtypes. Flocks also varied across latitude and disturbance gradients as predicted, but effect sizes were small. Our findings indicate that the unstructured nature of Andean flocks might arise as a strategy to cope with harsh environmental conditions. This article is part of the theme issue 'Mixed-species groups and aggregations: shaping ecological and behavioural patterns and processes'.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".