Nest Sanitation Plays a Role in Egg Burial by Yellow Warblers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Some hosts of the brown‐headed cowbird ( Molothrus ater ) possess defences that eliminate all or most parasitism costs. Yellow warblers ( Dendroica petechia ) bury cowbird eggs, possibly to clean nests rather than serving strictly as an anti‐parasite defence, as non‐egg‐shaped objects have been ejected, buried, or deserted by other hosts. With two experiments, we tested the ‘nest sanitation’ hypothesis by recording warblers’ responses to objects (1) similar in volume, mass, and colour to cowbird eggs, and (2) half the mass and volume (more easily ejected), placed into nests before and during incubation. We compared outcomes at control nests with responses to objects that were dissimilar (stars) and moderately similar (dumbbells) to eggs, and to real cowbird and warbler eggs. We tested whether rejection (1) declines from stars through dumbbells and real eggs, (2) is similar between stages, and (3) non‐egg‐shaped objects are ejected because this is the least costly rejection method. Large stars were rejected (most buried) significantly more frequently (43.8%) than cowbird eggs (16.3%) in pre‐incubation, suggesting that warblers reject objects shaped unlike their own eggs to rid nests of debris. Objects spent less time in nests the more they diverged from eggs. Warblers rarely rejected large stars and dumbbells, and cowbird eggs during incubation, possibly because burial and desertion are too costly by this time. Responses to small stars and dumbbells, and to foreign yellow warbler eggs did not differ between stages; also warblers rejected stars, mostly by ejection and selective burial, more frequently (28.8%) than dumbbells (1.3%) and warbler eggs (0%). Rejection by yellow warblers, especially burial, may keep nests clean, but also functions in rejecting cowbird eggs.
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) | 0.001 | 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".