Habitat preference facilitates successful early breeding in an open‐cup nesting songbird
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Selecting breeding habitats that ameliorate environmental limits on fitness and facilitate successful reproduction should benefit individual animals. This is particularly true in the temperate zone, where breeding early in a season presents a unique series of environmental challenges that can limit an individual's fitness. While many studies document links between habitat quality and reproductive success, few identify the cues used to assess habitat quality or the components of reproduction most influenced by occupying higher quality habitat, particularly during the early breeding season. We used detailed spatial maps and observations of all early season nesting attempts in an insular song sparrow ( Melospiza melodia ) population over 38 years to estimate the influence of nest‐site preference on reproductive success and to test whether relative microclimate or food availability may act as cues for early season site selection. Female sparrows in preferred early season nest sites had earlier laying dates, exhibited more energetically efficient incubation behaviour and produced more offspring that recruited to the population than those nesting in less‐preferred sites. Preference for potential nesting sites was positively related to leaf damage by Lepidopteran larvae, an indicator of food abundance, negatively related to early season microclimate, likely due to greater vegetation cover, and unrelated to site‐specific plant phenology. Our findings show that breeding in preferred, high‐quality habitat may offer females a fitness advantage by facilitating early laying and the production of offspring more likely to recruit to the population at a lower potential reproductive cost to the parent. We provide a clear demonstration of potential links between habitat preference and quality and their contributions to the ecology and life history of animals in seasonal environments.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".