Use of social over personal information enhances nest defense against avian brood parasitism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interactions with conspecifics influence the behavioral repertoire of an organism, as they apply to foraging techniques, song acquisition, habitat selection, and mate choice. Few workers have studied the role of social interactions in molding defense responses, especially the defense of the nest. We tested the effect of social interaction on nest defense of the reed warbler (Acrocephalus scirpaceus), one of the main hosts of the brood-parasitic common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) in Europe. This parasite reduces its host's breeding success; therefore, any response that prevents successful parasitism should be selected. Because of their high nesting density and consistent cuckoo-specific responses that also recruit conspecifics, reed warblers may benefit by acquiring already-competent antiparasite responses from conspecifics instead of incurring the costs implicit in trial-and-error attempts. Using treatments that included presentations of taxidermic mounts, clutch manipulations, and playbacks, we tested the effect of conspecific defense on the response intensity of nesting reed warblers. Exposure to social cues resulted in an increase of cuckoo-specific nest defense responses, whereas experience with natural or experimental parasitism did not produce any change in defense intensity. The preferential use of social cues rather than personal experience as it applies to the enhancement of mobbing was consistent with what was found in other behaviors, where the strategy adopted by individuals was the result of costly acquisition of personal information and reliability of social cues.
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".