MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406385790 · doi:10.5751/ace-02785-200102

Sex differences in migration routes and non-breeding areas of a declining shorebird

2025· article· en· W4406385790 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Ann E. McKellar, Cheri L. Gratto‐Trevor, T. W. Tibbitts

Bibliographic record

VenueAvian Conservation and Ecology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
KeywordsEcologyGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Migratory birds face different threats and pressures across their annual cycle, and understanding the impact of these factors on individuals is critical to the conservation of avian populations. Individuals from the same breeding population may share the same non-breeding areas, and thus experience similar conditions, or they may travel to different habitats or regions during migration and the stationary non-breeding period. Marbled Godwits (Limosa fedoa) breeding in the Northern Great Plains, which have experienced steep population declines, are thought to spend the non-breeding period primarily on the Pacific Coast of the United States and Mexico. However, little is known about migratory routes, stopover sites, and non-breeding locations of specific breeding populations, nor whether individuals from the same breeding population remain together throughout the year. We deployed satellite transmitters on four mated pairs of godwits breeding in southern Alberta, Canada, with individuals tracked over a mean of 2.2 annual cycles (range 0.6–5.6, excluding one unit that stopped transmitting immediately following deployment). Counter to our expectations, females and males separated completely following breeding, with females traveling to non-breeding areas along the coast of California, United States, and males stopping over at Great Salt Lake, Utah, United States, and spending the non-breeding period in Baja California Sur, Mexico, a distance of ~1300 km from their mates. Despite spending nine months apart, individuals from this breeding population have previously been shown to have high mate fidelity. Interestingly, individuals mostly used protected areas during the non-breeding period, in contrast to the human-modified agricultural landscapes that make up the majority of their breeding grounds. Despite a small sample size, our results suggest a strong pattern of differential migration based on sex, with implications for the specific environmental conditions, and potentially threats, faced by female and male godwits across the annual cycle.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAvian Conservation and EcologySame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207