Shape‐shifting in relative wing length of juvenile shorebirds: no evidence of developmental temperatures driving morphological changes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Morphological changes concurrent with climate change are increasingly identified in birds, often through decreasing body size and increasing appendage size. Such changes could have thermoregulatory implications, through the improved surface area to body ratio they provide. Due to the role of bird wings in thermoregulation, wing length relative to body mass may be changing as another form of shape‐shifting, where increased relative wing length may facilitate increased heat loss as climates warm. We investigated changes in relative wing length on a dataset of nearly 20 000 juvenile shorebirds from 11 species over the past four decades, to determine changes in morphology and whether these are linked to developmental temperatures. Overall, across species, we found that relative wing length increased across the 43‐year study period in populations migrating to tropical northern Australia but not in those migrating to temperate southern Australia. Furthermore, we found that changes in relative wing length were not driven by immediate responses to high temperature at the breeding ground during juvenile growth. These results may suggest that relative wing length increases occur in shorebirds occupying already warm climates, where they might potentially be more thermally challenged under further warming, but that such changes are not occurring through plastic mechanisms during development.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".