MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405944257 · doi:10.1111/ele.14513

Shorebirds Are Shrinking and Shape‐Shifting: Declining Body Size and Lengthening Bills in the Past Half‐Century

2024· article· en· W4405944257 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexandra McQueen, Marcel Klaassen, Glenn J. Tattersall, Sara Ryding, R. Atkinson, Rosalind Jessop, Chris J. Hassell, MacDonald J. Christie, Arkadiusz Fröhlich, Matthew R. E. Symonds

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology Letters · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAustralian Research CouncilNarodowym Centrum NaukiNarodowe Centrum Nauki
KeywordsEcologyBergmann's ruleGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Animals are predicted to shrink and shape-shift as the climate warms, declining in size, while their appendages lengthen. Determining which types of species are undergoing these morphological changes, and why, is critical to understanding species responses to global change, including potential adaptation to climate warming. We examine body size and bill length changes in 25 shorebird species using extensive field data (> 200,000 observations) collected over 46 years (1975-2021) by community scientists. We show widespread body size declines over time, and after short-term exposure to warmer summers. Meanwhile, shorebird bills are lengthening over time but shorten after hot summers. Shrinking and shape-shifting patterns are consistent across ecologically diverse shorebirds from tropical and temperate Australia, are more pronounced in smaller species and vary according to migration behaviour. These widespread morphological changes could be explained by multiple drivers, including adaptive and maladaptive responses to nutritional stress, or by thermal adaptation to climate warming.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.573

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology LettersSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207