The effects of anthropogenic alteration of nesting habitat on rates of extra‐pair fertilization and intraspecific brood parasitism in Canada Geese <i>Branta canadensis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parentage studies have shown that alternative reproductive strategies are widespread in many avian taxa that were once thought to be monogamous. Recent anthropogenically mediated habitat change may have disrupted ecological factors, such as breeding density, which have given rise to inter‐ and intraspecific variation in the frequency of extra‐pair fertilization (EPF) and intraspecific brood parasitism (IBP). We used genetic analyses to quantify the incidence of alternative reproductive strategies exhibited within clutches of Canada Geese Branta canadensis maxima nesting in high‐ and low‐density situations in and around urban areas in southern Michigan, USA. We tested the hypothesis that high nesting density would increase the frequency of EPF and IBP. There were no significant differences in rates of EPF and IBP clutches (14 and 26% of clutches, respectively) from nests in high‐density (21.7% EPF, 21.7% IBP) vs. low‐density (5.3% EPF, 31.6% IBP) areas, although high‐density sites had a fourfold higher rate of EPF. Rates of EPF and IBP in high‐density urban areas in Michigan were comparable to rates observed in other species nesting under different ecological conditions. Levels of relatedness between host and parasitic females were higher than expected by chance, suggesting that related females are more tolerant of one another and that host females could gain inclusive fitness benefits from rearing parasitic offspring. Our study highlights the importance of understanding the different costs and benefits associated with alternative behavioural repertoires that may vary as habitats and associated selection pressures are increasingly modified by human activities.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".