Dietary calcium limits size and growth of nestling tree swallows <i>Tachycineta bicolor</i> in a non‐acidified landscape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much previous research has focussed on the role of food supply in determining the growth and the survival of avian offspring. More recently, acid deposition in some ecosystems has demonstrated that in addition to energy, birds also need to acquire sufficient nutrients such as calcium to be successful. Whether procurement of adequate levels of calcium can limit reproductive success in areas that have not been impacted by acid rain remains equivocal. We tested whether calcium affected reproductive success of tree swallows Tachycineta bicolor by feeding extra calcium to nestlings during the brood‐rearing period. Our manipulation did not enhance the survival of offspring, however, provisioning of extra calcium resulted in nestlings showing enhanced rates of growth of mass (all nests) and of ninth primary flight feathers (nests with after‐second year female parents), compared to control nestlings. Calcium supplementation also resulted in nestlings having longer feathers and tarsi at age 16 days, and there was evidence that some nestlings receiving extra calcium were heavier at 16 days old. As offspring that have faster growth, or that are in good condition at fledging, often survive better after leaving the nest, these results suggest that calcium availability can limit fitness. Our results are noteworthy because our experiment was conducted in an area with abundant soil calcium where acid deposition has not occurred. The role of calcium in limiting the reproductive performance of avian species may therefore be more pervasive than previously thought.
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 | 0.001 | 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".