Vocal and Visual Conspecific Cues Influence the Behavior of Chimney Swifts at Provisioned Habitat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous species use socially derived information from conspecifics to evaluate the quality of potential habitat. We examine whether conspecific cues influence Chimney Swift (Chaetura pelagica) behavior at uninhabited provisioned habitat, and whether their response in the pre- and post-breeding seasons differs. We used conspecific playbacks and decoys at 19 towers designed for the swift's nesting in southern Ontario, Canada, and monitored response before, during, and after the experiment. In the pre-breeding season Chimney Swifts spent more overall time within 25 m of the towers regardless of experimental treatment. The length of time individuals spent in range of the towers increased when conspecific cues were deployed. In the pre-breeding season this effect ceased with the removal of cues, while in the post-breeding season the time spent in range increased following the removal of cues. We assert that conspecific cues influence Chimney Swift behavior, particularly in the post-breeding season when juveniles are likely prospecting for future nesting sites. Settlement in the towers did not improve during the years of this study, which may be because (1) provisioned habitat did not meet other requirements for settlement, (2) conspecifics influence behavior but they are not prerequisites for habitat selection, or (3) conspecific cues must be present for longer or more frequent periods to elicit settlement. However, Chimney Swifts showed a strong behavioral response to treatment which, provided all other cues for settlement are fulfilled, indicates that conspecific cues may encourage Chimney Swifts to settle in provisioned habitat.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".