MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Does nesting habitat predict hatch synchrony between brood parasitic brown‐headed cowbirds <i>Molothrus ater</i> and two host species?

2009· article· en· W2035637216 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Christopher M. Tonra, Matthew D. Johnson, Sacha K. Heath, Márk E. Hauber

Bibliographic record

VenueEcography · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMarsden FundU.S. Bureau of Land ManagementMcMaster University
KeywordsCowbirdBrood parasiteBiologyGeneralist and specialist speciesNest (protein structural motif)EcologySparrowWarblerHatchingHost (biology)BroodHabitatParasitismZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.841

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcographySame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207