Do Hosts Discriminate between Sexually Dichromatic Male and Female Brown‐headed Cowbirds?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Female brood parasites are recognized as threats to reproductive success by many host species. Male brood parasites may accompany females while they search for nests to parasitize and males depredate nests throughout the nesting cycle. Hence, selection may also favour recognition of males. We examined whether two common host species perceive male brown‐headed cowbirds ( Molothrus ater ) as brood parasites, as nest predators, or neither. We quantified visits of male cowbirds to nests of yellow warblers ( Dendroica petechia ) and red‐winged blackbirds ( Ageliaus phoeniceus ) to assess the frequency with which these host species interact with male cowbirds. Males were observed near nests during hosts’ laying and incubating stages, although less frequently than female cowbirds. No visits by cowbirds occurred while parents cared for nestlings. We then presented models of male and female cowbirds plus a non‐threatening control to yellow warblers and red‐winged blackbirds during laying and nestling periods. If hosts perceive males and females similarly, they should respond more intensely to the cowbird models during the laying period, when nests are most likely to be parasitized. Both species responded similarly to male and female cowbird models during laying, which suggests that hosts view cowbirds of both sexes as threats. The responses of yellow warblers with nestlings to male cowbirds were strongly influenced by the order of model presentation. Warblers first presented with the male cowbird gave much reduced anti‐parasite responses than those that first interacted with the female then the male cowbird. These results suggest that yellow warblers recognized male vs. female cowbirds, but that discrimination was not expressed during laying. By contrast, red‐winged blackbirds did not discriminate between male and female cowbirds at either nesting stage.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".