Balancing food and predator pressure induces chronic stress in songbirds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The never-ending tension between finding food and avoiding predators may be the most universal natural stressor wild animals experience. The 'chronic stress' hypothesis predicts: (i) an animal's stress profile will be a simultaneous function of food and predator pressures given the aforesaid tension; and (ii) these inseparable effects on physiology will produce inseparable effects on demography because of the resulting adverse health effects. This hypothesis was originally proposed to explain synergistic (inseparable) food and predator effects on demography in snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus). We conducted a 2 x 2, manipulative food addition plus natural predator reduction experiment on song sparrows (Melospiza melodia) that was, to our knowledge, the first to demonstrate comparable synergistic effects in a bird: added food and lower predator pressure in combination produced an increase in annual reproductive success almost double that expected from an additive model. Here we report the predicted simultaneous food and predator effects on measures of chronic stress in the context of the same experiment: birds at unfed, high predator pressure (HPP) sites had the highest stress levels; those at either unfed or HPP sites showed intermediate levels; and fed birds at low predator pressure sites had the lowest stress levels.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".