Do Blue Tits time their breeding based on cues obtained by consuming buds?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Many temperate-zone birds must track seasonal variation in food availability to time breeding and enhance reproductive success. However, the external cues birds use to fine-tune sexual development and timing of reproduction remain unclear. One possibility is that birds may use chemical substances in plants and bud tissues as a reliable predictor of leaf flush and the appearance of caterpillars, the preferred prey of many insectivorous birds during the breeding season. However, few data on seasonal shifts in key plant material consumption are available. To test this hypothesis, we examined the gizzard contents of Corsican Blue Tits (Cyanistes caeruleus), a small passerine bird with a breeding schedule tightly linked to the phenology of oak trees. We quantified and compared the consumption of tree buds by birds captured during winter (nonbreeding) and early spring (prebreeding) and found that bud use by Blue Tits was limited and constant through time. Fewer than 30% of birds had buds in their gizzards during the critical prebreeding period, and these items represented less than 1% of gizzard contents. It is unlikely that this limited use of buds allowed birds to track a potential chemical signal at the time of reproductive decision making. Unless more data on the consumption of plant material become available, we suggest that other environmental factors be examined to help identify the cues used by temperate-zone birds to time their reproduction.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".