Under my wing: lesser kestrels and jackdaws derive reciprocal benefits in mixed-species colonies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In mixed-species assemblages, antipredator benefits for a timid species nesting close to a more pugnacious one are often reported. Advantages for the protected species are usually manifested in terms of higher reproductive success than conspecifics nesting remote to the protector species. Whether the protector species also accrues any benefit remains untested, and the species-specific behavioral traits underlying enhanced reproductive output in mixed-species associations remain poorly documented. We studied associations between lesser kestrels (Falco naumanni) and jackdaws (Corvus monedula) nesting in rural buildings in the Gela Plain (Italy). We tested for interspecific interactions of jackdaws and lesser kestrels by comparing single- and mixed-species colonies in terms of: 1) vigilance, nest attendance, and intra- and interspecific interference and 2) defensive responses shown by each species when confronted with potential predators or competitors. In both species, nesting in mixed associations was accompanied by decreased vigilance. Diminished vigilance, however, was associated with decreased defensive effort for lesser kestrels, whereas jackdaws increased alarm calling, but only in small colonies. Our results reveal a reciprocal influence on behavior of lesser kestrels and jackdaws nesting within the same colony, whereby both species experience decreased energetic expenditures associated with vigilance, but only lesser kestrels appear to benefit via reduced nest defense effort. We discuss our results in light of the possible asymmetrical information transfer triggered by a common set of nest predators that favors the exchange of interspecific information regarding predator detection and defense.
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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".