Parental effort of American kestrels: the role of variation in brood size
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brood size has the potential to determine the allocation of resources between parents and offspring, as well as influence the relative contributions of each sex to parental effort. However, it is unclear whether brood size is the proximate determinant of parental effort, or conversely whether parental effort is the proximate factor to which brood size is adjusted. If brood size determines parental effort, then theory suggests that parental effort should vary with experimental changes in brood size. In contrast, if parental effort determines brood size, then parental effort is expected to be independent of experimental variation in brood size. To distinguish between these hypotheses, we experimentally reduced brood sizes of American kestrels (Falco sparverius). Our results suggest that male parents responded to brood-size variation and adjusted their provisioning behaviour accordingly. Conversely, female parents did not adjust provisioning in response to brood size, and as a result, offspring in reduced broods received more food on a per-nestling basis. However, condition and survival of offspring were similar in reduced broods and control young, which may have been the result of larger food requirements of small broods, owing to increased thermoregulatory costs compared with control broods. Female parents with reduced broods also did not brood offspring more often, further suggesting that females do not respond to variation in brood size. We conclude that the proximate determinants of parental effort are sex-specific in American kestrels: for males, brood size determines behaviour, whereas for females, behaviour may be a proximate factor determining brood size.
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) | 0.000 | 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".