MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Incubation feeding by male Scarlet Tanagers: a mate removal experiment

2008· article· en· W2047604983 on OpenAlexaff
Paul H. Klatt, Bridget J. M. Stutchbury, Melissa L. Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Field Ornithology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersSvenska Forskningsrådet Formas
KeywordsIncubationNest (protein structural motif)ForagingBiologyIncubation periodAnimal scienceEcologyZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Incubation feeding, where males feed their mates, is a common behavior in birds and may improve female condition, nest attentiveness, and nesting success. We used behavioral observations and a temporary mate removal experiment to test the female nutrition hypothesis for incubation feeding by male Scarlet Tanagers (Piranga olivacea). All males (N= 20) were observed incubation feeding and fed females both at the nest (x̄ 1.36 trips/h) and away from the nest (x̄ 20.1 trips/h). Male feeding rate off-nest was negatively correlated with the duration of female foraging bouts and positively correlated with the total time females spent incubating per hour. Eggs were predated at seven of 19 (37%) nests, but nest survival during incubation was not related to either female incubation behavior or male feeding rate. During temporary removal experiments (N= 12), female Scarlet Tanagers remained on the nest significantly longer and did not have longer foraging bouts. An unexpected outcome of the removal experiments was a dramatic change in female vocal behavior. All 12 experimental females gave chik-burr calls during the male-removal experiments (x̄ bout length = 11.7 min), but during normal observation periods only six of 20 females at the incubation stage gave chik-burr calls (x̄ bout length = 0.7 min, N= 20). Our results suggest that female tanagers likely gain nutritional benefits from incubation feeding, but male feeding may not improve immediate reproductive success. Nine of 54 (17%) nestlings in five of 17 broods (29%) were extra-pair young (EPY), indicating that males could potentially benefit from incubation feeding via mate retention and fidelity as well as, or instead of, through immediate gains in reproductive success. Our study indicates that females benefit from incubation feeding and do not simply passively accept food from their mates, but instead may influence male feeding rates through direct (e.g., mate following and vocalizing) and indirect (the threat of mate abandonment or cuckoldry) means.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations15
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Field OrnithologySame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207