Long‐ and short‐term responses to climate change in body and appendage size of diverse Australian birds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Changes to body size and shape have been identified as potential adaptive responses to climate change, but the pervasiveness of these responses has been questioned. To address this, we measured body and appendage size from 5013 museum bird skins of 78 ecologically and evolutionary diverse Australian species. We found that morphological change is a shared response to climate change across birds. Birds increased relative bill surface area, tarsus length, and relative wing length through time, consistent with expectations of increasing appendage size as climates warm. Furthermore, birds decreased in absolute wing length, consistent with the expectation of decreasing body size in warmer climates. Interestingly, these trends were generally consistent across different diets and migratory and thermoregulatory behaviors. Shorter term responses to higher temperatures were contrary to long-term effects for appendages, wherein relative appendage size decreased after hotter years, indicating the complex selective pressures acting on birds as temperatures rise with climate change. Overall, our findings support the notion that morphological adaptation is a widespread response to climate change in birds that is independent of other ecological traits.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".