Nesting phenology of migratory songbirds in an eastern Canadian boreal forest, 1996–2020
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The migration phenology of many bird species has changed over the past few decades, but whether such changes lead to changes in the nesting phenology remains little known. Studying bird nesting in the boreal forest comes with challenges because of the large size of this biome. We evaluated songbird nesting phenology for the past 25 yrs in a boreal forest in eastern Canada, Forêt Montmorency. We used the observation of food transport in adults as an index of parental status, considering the imperfect detection of this status through hierarchical models of site occupation. We estimated annual phenology as the Julian date of the inflection point of the logistic fit of proportion of sites with parental activity as a function of Julian date. Contrary to expectations related to the advance of spring migration in North America, models did not show an advancement in the nesting season. Models showed that passerines can move their nesting date back or forward by 1 to 9 d. Models suggested that short-distance migrants delayed their nesting date by 2 wks against 1 mo for long-distance migrants. These results show the capacity of songbirds to adjust their nesting time and remind us of the value of regional studies when we are interested in reproductive phenology.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".