MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132135098 · doi:10.1650/7412

CORRELATES OF EGG REJECTION IN HOSTS OF THE BROWN-HEADED COWBIRD

2004· article· en· W2132135098 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOrnithological Applications · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCowbirdParasitismBiologyBrood parasiteNest (protein structural motif)Host (biology)EcologyPredationPopulationZoologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We conducted a comparative analysis of eight potential correlates of egg rejection in hosts of the parasitic Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater) to test the evolutionary equilibrium and evolutionary lag hypotheses as explanations for the acceptance of cowbird parasitism. The analyses generally supported evolutionary lag. Historic contact with cowbirds may explain why hosts that have recently come into contact with cowbirds accept parasitism, but it does not account for acceptance by hosts with long histories of contact with cowbirds. Egg predation by hosts, nest sanitation, population size, and egg appearance were not correlated with rejection. Larger species that typically build larger nests were more likely to reject. Large hosts may have been parasitized more frequently in the past, possibly due to their more easily found nests or superiority as hosts, and as a result, may have had more opportunity to evolve rejection. Rejection was also correlated with taxonomic affiliation, suggesting that once rejection evolves it is maintained, which implies that rejection is not costly and thus argues against an evolutionary equilibrium. Not surprisingly, hosts with large bills were more likely to reject. This may be a corollary of the tendency for large hosts, which tend to have larger bills, to reject. An evolutionary equilibrium may exist for hosts with eggs that resemble cowbird eggs, depending on the costs to host reproductive success and the likelihood of committing recognition errors. Nevertheless, some hosts have been in contact with cowbirds for a long time, build large nests, have large bills, have a “favorable” phylogeny, and lay eggs that differ from cowbird eggs, yet accept cowbird parasitism. Chance may play a role in the accumulation of the necessary recombinants and mutations necessary for the evolution of rejection. Factores Correlacionados con el Rechazo de Huevos por parte de Hospederos de Molothrus ater Resumen. Realizamos un análisis comparativo de ocho factores que potencialmente podrían estar correlacionados con el rechazo de huevos por parte de hospederos del parásito de cría Molothrus ater para poner a prueba las hipótesis de equilibrio evolutivo y de demora en la respuesta evolutiva propuestas para explicar la aceptación del parasitismo. Los análisis generalmente apoyaron la hipótesis de la demora en la respuesta evolutiva. El contacto histórico con Molothrus podría explicar por qué hospederos que sólo recientemente han entrado en contacto con estas aves aceptan el parasitismo, pero no explica por qué hay hospederos que tienen largas historias de contacto con el parásito y aceptan ser parasitadas. La depredación de huevos por parte del hospedero, el comportamiento de aseo del nido, el tamaño poblacional y la apariencia de los huevos no estuvieron correlacionados con el rechazo de huevos parásitos. Las especies grandes, que típicamente construyen nidos más grandes, presentaron una probabilidad más alta de rechazar huevos. Los hospederos más grandes podrían haber sido parasitados más frecuentemente en el pasado, posiblemente debido a que sus nidos se encuentran con mayor facilidad o a que son mejores hospederos y, como resultado, podrían haber tenido mayores oportunidades evolutivas para desarrollar el comportamiento de rechazar huevos. El comportamiento de rechazo también estuvo correlacionado con la filiación taxonómica, lo que sugiere que una vez que éste evoluciona se mantiene, implicando que no es costoso, lo que a su vez es un argumento en contra de la hipótesis del equilibrio evolutivo. De forma poco sorprendente, los hospederos con picos grandes fueron más propensos a rechazar huevos. Esto podría ser un corolario de la tendencia de los hospederos grandes (los cuales tienden a tener picos más grandes) a rechazar huevos. Es posible que exista un equilibrio evolutivo para los casos de hospederos que tienen huevos que se asemejan a los de Molothrus, dependiendo de los costos sobre el éxito reproductivo del hospedero y la probabilidad de cometer errores de reconocimiento. Sin embargo, algunos hospederos han estado en contacto con Molothrus por períodos prolongados, construyen nidos grandes, tienen picos grandes, tienen afinidades filogenéticas “favorables” y ponen huevos que difieren de los del parásito, y aún así aceptan el parasitismo. El azar podría jugar un papel importante en la acumulación de los recombinantes y mutaciones necesarios para que el comportamiento de rechazo pueda evolucionar.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it