Sheep in wolf's clothing: host nestling vocalizations resemble their cowbird competitor's
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nestlings of many avian brood parasites are virtuosos at mimicking host nestling vocalizations, which, like egg mimicry, presumably ensures acceptance by host parents. Having been accepted, parasitic nestlings then often exaggerate the aspects of the host's display to increase parental care. Host nestlings may, in turn, exaggerate their vocalizations to keep up with the parasite, though this possibility has not been evaluated. We experimentally parasitized song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) nests with a brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) chick to evaluate how host nestlings respond. Vocalizations emitted from experimentally parasitized nests were higher in frequency, and louder, than those from unparasitized nests, consistent with the cowbird exaggerating its signalling. In response, host nestlings exaggerated the frequency and amplitude of their vocalizations, such that they resembled the cowbird's while they 'scaled back' on calls per parental provisioning bout. Sparrows in parasitized nests were fed equally often as sparrows in unparasitized nests, suggesting that exaggerating some aspects of vocalization while scaling back on others can help host nestlings confronted with a cowbird. Our results support the recently proposed hypothesis that signalling in parasitized nests involves a dynamic interaction between parasitic and host nestlings, rather than a one-way process of mimicry by the parasite.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".