Food hoarding behaviour of black‐capped chickadees ( <i>Poecile atricapillus</i> ) in relation to forest edges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In temperate forests, small birds avoid the use of forest edges in adverse winter weather suggesting high foraging costs in terms of energetic requirements. Since hoarding species will often retrieve caches during adverse winter weather, they may perceive forest edges, especially exposed ones, as low quality hoarding sites. We tested whether black‐capped chickadees ( Poecile atricapillus) inhabiting fragmented forests modify and reduce hoarding activity near forest edges. We also tested whether hoarding behaviour will be most affected in sites with forest edges more exposed to extreme weather. Black‐capped chickadees taking food from a feeder 30 m from the nearest forest edges hoarded items mostly towards the forest interior, whereas no preference in hoarding location was observed with birds taking food from a feeder placed >100 m from the edge. Furthermore, birds avoided direct flights towards forest edges and, at sites exposed to prevailing winds, hoarding trips were shorter than at other locations. These results suggest that individuals avoid hoarding near forest edges and there, they lower their investment in terms of hoarding effort. The observed difference in hoarding behaviour was more evident near forest edges delimiting wide unforested areas than in edges delimiting narrower unforested areas. Edge exposure to prevailing winds influenced hoarding behaviour much less. We suggest that hoarding birds may partially overcome the ecological costs of habitat loss and fragmentation due to abiotic edge effects. By hoarding food away from forest edges in good weather, they may use forest interiors as low‐cost retrieval sites under adverse weather.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".