Hatching asynchrony in the Eurasian kestrel <i>Falco tinnunculus</i>: an experimental test of the brood reduction hypothesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary 1. We tested the brood reduction hypothesis by manipulating hatching spans of Eurasian kestrel Falco tinnunculus (Linnaeus) broods during two low vole years (1996–97) in western Finland. In addition, half the broods in 1997 were food supplemented during the entire nestling period. 2. Nestling mortality was high, occurring in 55% of nests, and the effect of manipulated hatching span on fledging success was more pronounced than either the effects of year or supplementary food. In contrast to the predictions tested, fledging success was higher in synchronous than asynchronous nests, both when food was limiting and when food conditions were substantially improved by food supplements. 3. We found no evidence that brood reduction resulted in higher quality (body mass) of surviving young in low vole years. On average, fledglings were heavier at synchronous than asynchronous nests. This was only the case, however, when food was limiting. 4. Most nestling mortality occurred when the chicks were 2 weeks old, and age of death did not differ between the brood types. Parents at synchronous nests fed their broods at a higher rate than at asynchronous broods, this divergence arising only in the latter part of nestling period. 5. This is the first hatching span experiment where synchronous hatching seemed more profitable than asynchronous during conditions of both food scarcity and food abundance. The higher parental workload at synchronous nests could, however, counterbalance the benefits of synchronous hatching. 6. Hatching in natural broods of Eurasian kestrel is more synchronous in low vole years compared to high vole years. The fact that synchronous broods out‐performed asynchronous broods in both ‘low’ years of the study is consistent with the facultative manipulations. The benefit of asynchrony in high vole years is still unclear.
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) | 0.002 | 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 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".