Structure of breeding calls in three closely related bird species (<i>Calidris</i> Merrem, 1804; Scolopacidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied calls of three sandpiper species to document species’ similarities and differences. We hypothesized that functionally different calls would differ in degree of divergence. We studied two nuptial calls (complex “Song” and rhythmically repeated aerial call, RRC) of males, and a general-purpose call (“alarm” trill, AT) given by parents of both sexes in the presence of humans and other potential predators, in great knot, Calidris tenuirostris (Horsfeld, 1821); surfbird, Calidris virgata (Gmelin, 1789); and red knot, Calidris canutus (Linnaeus, 1758). Calls diverged unevenly across species—RRCs and Song diverged the most and ATs the least. Vocalizations of great knot and surfbird were most similar to one another, in agreement with a recently proposed phylogeny. Despite species differences in single acoustic traits, calls were evolutionarily conservative at higher structural levels, such as rhythmic temporal delivery of RRCs and harmonic structure (e.g., the fundamental frequency was suppressed in some call types). Some acoustic qualities that differed across species were similar across call types within species (e.g., tonality in red knot calls). Trait similarity across different calls suggests that a species’ calls cannot evolve independently of one another: common mechanisms of vocal production across different calls may impede differentiation within a species’ repertoire.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".