MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

FOOD AND PREDATORS AFFECT EGG PRODUCTION IN SONG SPARROWS

2006· article· en· W2162572067 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Liana Zanette, Michael Clinchy, James N. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of VictoriaWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPredationPredatorAvian clutch sizeBiologyNest (protein structural motif)EcologyReproductive successSeasonal breederReproductionAbundance (ecology)ZoologyPopulationDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the possibility that food and predators may interact in limiting avian populations has long been recognized, there have been few attempts to test this experimentally in the field. We conducted a manipulative food addition experiment on the demography of Song Sparrows (Melospiza melodia) across sites that varied in predator abundance, near Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, over three consecutive breeding seasons. We previously showed that food and predators had interactive effects on annual reproductive success (young fledged per female). Here, we report the effects on egg production. Our results show that food limits the total number of eggs laid over the breeding season ("total egg production") and that interactive food and predator effects, including food effects on nest predation, determine how those eggs are "parceled out" into different nests. Food addition alone significantly affected total egg production, and there was no significant interannual variability in this result. At the same time, both food and predators affected the two determinants of total egg production: "clutch number" (total number of clutches laid) and average clutch size. Both clutch number and size were affected by a food x predator x year interaction. Clutch number was lower at low-predator locations because there was less nest predation and thus less renesting. Food addition also significantly reduced nest predation, but there was significant interannual variation in this effect. This interannual variation was responsible for the food x predator x year interactions because the larger the effect of food on nest predation in a given year, the smaller was the effect of food on clutch number; and the smaller the effect of food on clutch number, the larger was the effect of food on clutch size. Potential predator and year effects on total egg production were thus cancelled out by an inverse relationship between clutch number and clutch size. We suggest that combined food and predator effects on demography could be the norm in both birds and mammals.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations76
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcologySame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207