Parental Sex Differences in Food Allocation to Junior Brood Members as Mediated by Prey Size
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Individual offspring within a brood may receive different amounts of provisioning from the male and female parents. Some hypotheses suggest that this bias is the result of an active and adaptive choice by parents. An alternative hypothesis is that feeding biases arise as a result of a constraint of fitting large prey items into small gapes. In an experiment with pied flycatchers, Ficedula hypoleuca , we tested for sex‐biased allocation to junior nestlings in asynchronous broods and whether this could be explained by active parental choice or by passive allocation according to prey size and gape size. In both control broods and broods with experimentally increased degree of asynchrony, prey types did not differ between parents but females brought smaller prey than males at younger but not older nestling stages. At younger but not older nestling stages, the majority of feeds to junior nestlings were from females, and the smaller nestlings consumed smaller prey than older siblings. However, there was no evidence of active preference of small nestlings by females as parents did not differ in the tendency to bypass a begging senior nestling in order to feed a junior nestling. Provisioning rates by females were lower than those by males when nestlings were young and we suggest that foraging time constraints caused by the need to brood offspring result in females bringing smaller prey than males. In turn, the larger prey brought by males was more often transferred to larger offspring after the smaller ones failed to swallow it. In such cases, ‘preferential’ feeding of small nestlings by females may simply be a passive side effect of foraging constraints and gape‐size limitations.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".