Does nesting habitat predict hatch synchrony between brood parasitic brown‐headed cowbirds <i>Molothrus ater</i> and two host species?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nestling brown‐headed cowbirds Molothrus ater typically hatch earlier and grow faster than young of the many host species of this generalist obligate brood parasite. However, a cowbird chick also benefits from the presence of some host nest mates as the parasite is provisioned disproportionately more with increasing brood size. Since asynchronous hatching affects both cowbird and host nestlings’ growth and survival, mechanisms that optimize the timing of egg‐laying by female parasites should be prevalent. Several habitat features might facilitate optimal timing of parasitic egg‐laying and we examined whether aspects of host nesting habitat predicted cowbird hatching synchrony. We tested whether synchronous nests were less concealed, closer to perches, and located in areas of higher host density than asynchronous nests using a broad‐scale information theoretic approach. There was no support for these predictions regarding song sparrow ( Melospiza melodia ; n=55) or yellow warbler ( Dendroica petechia ; n=67) nests parasitized by brown‐headed cowbirds at Mono Lake, USA. For example, the best statistical models for predicting hatching synchrony in yellow warbler nests included nesting‐patch width and nest‐substrate shrub species. However, these relationships were relatively weak: both synchronous and asynchronous nests were in patches with statistically indistinguishable widths and the two dominant shrub species at our site contained similar proportions of synchronous and asynchronous nests. We conclude that the variability of host nesting habitats does not contribute to a biologically consistent effect on hatching synchrony by this generalist brood parasite.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".