Data from: Persistent species relationships characterize migrating bird communities across stopover sites and seasons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Global migrations of diverse animal species often converge along the same routes, bringing together seasonal assemblages of animals that may compete, prey on each other, and share information or pathogens. These interspecific interactions, when energetic demands are high and time to complete journeys is short, may influence survival, migratory success, stopover ecology, and migratory routes. Numerous accounts suggest interspecific co-migrations are globally distributed in aerial, aquatic, and terrestrial systems, although the study of migration to date has rarely investigated species interactions among migrating animals. Here we test the hypothesis that migrating animals are communities engaged in networks of ecological interactions. We leverage over half a million records of 50 bird species from five bird banding sites collected over 8-23 years to test for species associations using social network analyses. We find strong support for persistent species relationships across sites and between spring and fall migration. These relationships may be ecologically meaningful: they are often stronger among phylogenetically related species with similar foraging behaviors and non-breeding ranges even after accounting for the non-social contributions to associations, including overlap in migration timing and habitat use. While interspecific interactions could result in costly competition or beneficial information exchange, we find relationships are largely positive, suggesting limited competitive exclusion at the scale of a banding station during migratory stopovers. Our findings support an understanding of animal migrations that consist of networked communities rather than random assemblages of independently migrating species, encouraging future studies of the nature and consequences of co-migrant interactions.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".