Greater hippocampal neuronal recruitment in food‐storing than in non‐food‐storing birds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has shown heightened recruitment of new neurons to the chickadee hippocampus in the fall. The present study was conducted to determine whether heightened fall recruitment is associated with the seasonal onset of food-storing by comparing neurogenesis in chickadees and a non-food-storing species, the house sparrow. Chickadees and house sparrows were captured in the wild in fall and spring and received multiple injections of the cell birth marker bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU). Birds were held in captivity and the level of hippocampal neuron recruitment was assessed after 6 weeks. Chickadees showed significantly more hippocampal neuronal recruitment than house sparrows. We found no seasonal differences in hippocampal neuronal recruitment in either species. In chickadees and in house sparrows, one-third of new cells labeled for BrdU also expressed the mature neuronal protein, NeuN. In a region adjacent to the hippocampus, the hyperpallium apicale, we observed no significant differences in neuronal recruitment between species or between seasons. Hippocampal volume and total neuron number both were greater in spring than in fall in chickadees, but no seasonal differences were observed in house sparrows. Enhanced neuronal recruitment in the hippocampus of food-storing chickadees suggests a degree of neurogenic specialization that may be associated with the spatial memory requirements of food-storing behavior.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.000 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".