MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109990028 · doi:10.2980/16-3-3233

Nest-dwelling ectoparasites of two sympatric hole-nesting passerines in relation to nest composition: An experimental study

2009· article· en· W2109990028 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Juan Moreno, Santiago Merino, Elisa Lobato, Rafael Ruiz‐de‐Castañeda, Josué Martínez‐de la Puente, Sara del Cerro

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBird parasitology and diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNest (protein structural motif)FicedulaCyanistesBiologyNest boxEcologyIntraspecific competitionParusBird nestAltricialInterspecific competitionZoologyPasserinePredation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are often marked differences in the incidence of nest-dwelling ectoparasite species on different coexisting and similar avian host species. This has been shown especially for fleas (Siphonaptera), larvae of flies (Diptera), and mites (Acarina) in nests of tits and flycatchers breeding in nest-boxes in close proximity to each other. One of the possible reasons for these differences is the marked differences in nest composition between avian species. We show here differences in ectoparasite presence and nest composition for blue tits (Cyanistes caeruleus) and pied flycatchers (Ficedula hypoleuca) coexisting in oak forests in central Spain. There also may be intraspecific differences in local preferences for nest-building materials according to availability of plant materials, which could be due to arthropod repellent properties of different potential nest components. We show here a local difference in nest composition between 2 pied flycatcher populations in relation to availability of a preferred material associated with higher ectoparasite presence in the locality without the preferred nest material. We test the hypotheses that differential incidence of ectoparasites at the interspecific and intraspecific levels may depend on nest composition. We conducted a nest exchange experiment in one study locality in 2007 placing in nest-boxes occupied by flycatchers 1) nests constructed by blue tits in 2006 in another locality and removed before use and stored frozen, 2) nests constructed by flycatchers in 2006 in another locality with different nest composition and removed before use and stored frozen, and 3) nests constructed by other flycatcher pairs in the same study locality in 2007. Another group of flycatcher nests was kept as pure control, while a few blue tit nests constructed in 2007 and taken over by flycatchers were used for comparison with nests of treatment 1. No effect on presence of mites and blowflies of either nest-constructing species or locality of construction was observed for pied flycatcher nests, and for fleas only an effect of locality but not of nest constructing species was detected. On the other hand, presence of mites and blowflies differed between nests constructed by blue tits and occupied by either blue tits or pied flycatchers. Nest composition does not explain the differential incidence of nest-dwelling ectoparasites on coexisting avian host species.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations75
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcoscienceSame topicBird parasitology and diseasesFrench-language works237,207