MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117375459 · doi:10.1111/ddi.70126

Low Migratory Connectivity and Use of Multiple Non‐Breeding Sites in American Golden‐Plovers Breeding Across the Nearctic Tundra

2025· article· en· W7117375459 on OpenAlexafffund
Jean‐François Lamarre, Gilles Gauthier, Richard Lanctot, Sarah T. Saalfeld, Oliver P. Love, Eric T. Reed, Oscar Johnson, Joe Liebezeit, Rebecca McGuire, Mike Russell, Erica Nol, Laura Koloski, F. K. Sanders, Laura McKinnon, Paul A. Smith, Scott A. Flemming, Stephen C. Brown, Nicolas Lecomte, Marie‐Andrée Giroux, Silke Bauer, Tamara Emmenegger, Joël Bêty

Bibliographic record

VenueDiversity and Distributions · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MonctonTrent UniversityYork UniversityNorthwestern PolytechnicAlberta Environment and Protected AreasNunavut Arctic CollegeUniversity of WindsorCenter for Northern StudiesEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesU.S. Bureau of Land ManagementNunavut Wildlife Management BoardNatural Resources CanadaIndigenous and Northern Affairs CanadaU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaGovernment of AlbertaNew Brunswick Innovation FoundationArcticNetAlberta Fish and WildlifeGovernment of NunavutParks CanadaUniversité de MonctonArctic Landscape Conservation CooperativeNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaW. Garfield Weston FoundationNational Fish and Wildlife FoundationUniversité du Québec à RimouskiChurchill Northern Studies Centre
KeywordsRange (aeronautics)TundraBiological dispersalNearctic ecozonePopulationFlywayPhenologyBreeding bird surveyOccupancyBird migration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Aim Many populations of migratory birds are currently declining. Understanding space use throughout the entire annual cycle, as well as migratory connectivity (i.e., geographic linkage of individuals and populations across different stages of the annual cycle), can improve our ability to identify factors driving population declines and influencing extinction risk. The main objectives of our study were to (i) document the space use and phenology of migration during the non‐breeding period and (ii) quantify the degree of migratory connectivity across the range of the American Golden‐Plover ( Pluvialis dominica ) breeding across the North American Arctic. Location American Golden‐Plovers that breed across their entire breeding range (northern North America) and migrate up to their main wintering site located in South America. Methods We used archival light‐level geolocators to track the migration. We quantified migratory connectivity based on the non‐breeding range spread of all individuals and the breeding population spread. We used Mantel tests to evaluate whether the relative spatial configuration of the sampled breeding area was preserved on the non‐breeding ground. Results We identified 13 and 7 stopover sites used during the fall (post‐breeding, southbound) and spring (pre‐breeding, northbound) migrations, respectively, and one main site used during the wintering period. We highlight stopover sites that were previously unknown and show the transatlantic and transpacific routes used by plovers during migration. We found that individuals breeding in proximity tended to be closer to each other during brief and highly limited portions of the non‐breeding period. Broadly, individuals from different breeding populations were well mixed during the wintering period and throughout most of the spring and fall migrations. Main Conclusions Overall, the migratory connectivity of American Golden‐Plovers is relatively low for most of the non‐breeding period, suggesting that breeding populations separated by large distances should be similarly affected by disturbances and changes encountered at some migratory stopovers and in the wintering area.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.764

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.244
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiversity and DistributionsSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207