Site- and sex-level differences in adult feeding behaviour and its consequences to offspring quality in tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) following brood-size manipulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In species with biparental care, males tend to invest less in offspring than do females, likely because of differences in the costs and benefits associated with parental effort. Here I test for sex differences in the response of tree swallows ( Tachycineta bicolor (Vieillot, 1808)) to a brood-size manipulation at two locations differing in food resources, Alaska and New York. I tested sex and habitat differences in how swallows responded to changes in offspring demand. At both sites, both sexes increased effort when feeding enlarged broods, although Alaskan males increased feeding less than Alaskan females. Males decreased feeding effort more to reduced broods than females, but only in Alaska. Food abundance was higher in Alaska than in New York, and Alaskan tree swallows made more feeding visits than New York tree swallows. In New York, food availability did not predict feeding rate and there was no sex difference in the response to brood manipulation. In both sites, male feeding effort was linked with nestling residual body mass, while female feeding effort was correlated with nestling growth rate. This study demonstrates that male tree swallows differ from females by being the first to reduce feeding effort under certain conditions and that male and female feeding rate affects offspring quality differently.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".