Does cowbird parasitism increase predation risk to American redstart nests?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brood parasitism and nest predation are major causes of reproductive failure for many bird species nesting in fragmented landscapes. While brood parasites and predators may act independently, they could also interact if brood parasites increase the likelihood that predators detect nests. In this study, we examined the interaction between cowbird parasitism and nest predation in a 10 year study on 466 American redstart Setophaga ruticilla nests in central Alberta, Canada. We used advanced nest survival models to examine the support for three mechanisms that might lead to a positive correlation between brood parasitism and nest predation: 1) the presence of a cowbird nestling might increase the detection of the nest by predators, 2) nests with lower cover are more likely to be detected by both cowbirds and predators, and 3) cowbirds and predators may co‐occur in landscapes of similar structure. Twelve percent of nests were parasitized and those nests had a 16–19% higher rate of failure due to predators compared to unparasitized nests. Daily nest predation rates increased during the nestling stage for both groups, but more strongly for parasitized nests. Loud begging by the cowbird nestling and/or higher parental feeding rates for the cowbird may have increased nest detectability to predators. Brood parasitism and nest predation were also positively related to forest cover, indicating landscape level effects were influential. Most nest predators were forest species and we suspect cowbirds responded positively to forest cover because of the increased abundance of songbird hosts. Nest‐site features had less of an impact on nest predation or brood parasitism, although nests with higher overhead cover were less susceptible to predators. Our study shows how multiple mechanisms, particularly the behavioral effects of the brood parasite nestling and landscape structure, can lead to a positive relationship between nest predation and brood parasitism.
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 | 0.002 |
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".