Why do avian responses to change in Arctic green‐up vary?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Global climate change has altered the timing of seasonal events (i.e., phenology) for a diverse range of biota. Within and among species, however, the degree to which alterations in phenology match climate variability differ substantially. To better understand factors driving these differences, we evaluated variation in timing of nesting of eight Arctic-breeding shorebird species at 18 sites over a 23-year period. We used the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index as a proxy to determine the start of spring (SOS) growing season and quantified relationships between SOS and nest initiation dates as a measure of phenological responsiveness. Among species, we tested four life history traits (migration distance, seasonal timing of breeding, female body mass, expected female reproductive effort) as species-level predictors of responsiveness. For one species (Semipalmated Sandpiper), we also evaluated whether responsiveness varied across sites. Although no species in our study completely tracked annual variation in SOS, phenological responses were strongest for Western Sandpipers, Pectoral Sandpipers, and Red Phalaropes. Migration distance was the strongest additional predictor of responsiveness, with longer-distance migrant species generally tracking variation in SOS more closely than species that migrate shorter distances. Semipalmated Sandpipers are a widely distributed species, but adjustments in timing of nesting relative to variability in SOS did not vary across sites, suggesting that different breeding populations of this species were equally responsive to climate cues despite differing migration strategies. Our results unexpectedly show that long-distance migrants are more sensitive to local environmental conditions, which may help them to adapt to ongoing changes in climate.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".