Nest cavity orientation in black‐capped chickadees <i>Poecile atricapillus</i> : do the acoustic properties of cavities influence sound reception in the nest and extra‐pair matings?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Birds that nest in cavities may regulate nest microclimate by orienting their nest entrance relative to the sun or prevailing winds. Alternatively, birds may orient their nest entrance relative to conspecific individuals around them, especially if the acoustic properties of cavities permit nesting birds to better hear individuals in front of their nest. We measured the cavity entrance orientation of 132 nests and 234 excavations in a colour‐banded population of black‐capped chickadees Poecile atricapillus for which the reproductive behaviour of nesting females was known. Most chickadees excavated cavities in rotten birch Betula papyrifera , aspen Populus tremuloides and maple Acer saccharum . Nest cavities showed random compass orientation around 360° demonstrating that chickadees do not orient their cavities relative to the sun or prevailing winds. We also presented chickadees with nest boxes arranged in groups of four, oriented at 90° intervals around the same tree. Nests constructed in these nest box quartets also showed random compass orientation. To test the acoustic properties of nest cavities, we conducted a sound transmission experiment using a microphone mounted inside a chickadee nest. Re‐recorded songs demonstrate that chickadee nest cavities have directional acoustic properties; songs recorded with the cavity entrance oriented towards the loudspeaker were louder than songs recorded with the cavity entrance oriented away from the loudspeaker. Thus, female chickadees, who roost inside their nest cavity in the early morning during their fertile period, should be better able to hear males singing the dawn chorus in front of their nest cavity. Using GIS analyses we tested for angular‐angular correlation between actual nest cavity orientation and the azimuth from the nest tree to the territories and nest cavities of nearby males. In general, nest cavity entrances showed no angular‐angular correlation with neighbourhood territory features. However, among birds who followed a mixed reproductive strategy and nested in the soft wood of birch and aspen trees, nest cavity entrances were oriented towards their extra‐pair partners. We conclude that nest cavity orientation in birds may be influenced by both ecological and social factors.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".