The Influence of Food Abundance on Nest-Box Occupancy and Territory Size in the Tree Swallow, a Species That Does Not Defend a Feeding Territory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In species that defend all-purpose breeding territories, territory size is usually inversely related to food abundance, but it is unclear whether this relationship results from reduced need to defend a large territory if food is abundant or from greater competitive pressure from conspecifics. Although studies of both breeding and winter territories suggest that competitive pressure is the proximate determinant of territory size, with food abundance acting indirectly by increasing the density of competitors, results are often equivocal because competitor density and food abundance tend to be positively correlated. In the Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor), an aerial insectivore that defends only nest sites, defense of a food supply is not a determinant of territory size. I describe two series of experiments involving manipulation of nest-box spacing and measurements of insect abundance at four sites at and near Long Point, Ontario, Canada. Rates of occupancy of nest boxes spaced 24 m apart (beyond the normal range of territorial defense) were high at all sites (75–100%) and positively correlated with insect abundance. Occupancy of nest boxes placed 3 m apart (within the range Tree Swallows defend) was 28% to 100%, and the effect of close spacing on occupancy (attributable to territorial behavior) was also positively correlated with insect abundance. I conclude that the latter relationship must result from variation in competitive pressure because the food resource is not defended. Food abundance acts indirectly on occupancy and territory size by influencing the level of competitive pressure for nest boxes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".