Conspicuous calling near cryptic nests: a review of hypotheses and a field study on white‐browed scrubwrens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predation is an important source of nest mortality in many bird species and calling near the nest can increase this risk, yet adults of many species regularly vocalize near their nests. Some of these calls serve clearly adaptive functions, such as alarm or provisioning calls. However, many species also give conspicuous ‘contact’ calls near the nest, which is puzzling because the function of these calls is unclear, and they might attract predators. Most studies of parental vocalizations near nests have focused on specific vocalizations and single hypotheses, yet there is a diversity of vocalization types and potential functions. We review the literature on the diversity and possible function of parental vocalizations near the nest, and then investigate the puzzle of conspicuous contact calling near nests by white‐browed scrubwrens Sericornis frontalis . In scrubwrens, ‘chip‐zz’ contact calls were almost always used when adults approached nests, and when they approached one another or changed location. Call composition also changed: the proportion of ‘chip’ elements increased as callers approached the nest or other adults. Neither adult sex nor nestling age affected calling. Thus, chip‐zz calls appear to be used as ongoing signals to other group members of the caller's activity and location, particularly relative to the nest. Nestlings appeared to use the calls as cues of adult arrival, and increased calling as adults approached nests. Further, adults called less after a predator was on the territory, suggesting that parents may be able to reduce the risk of chip‐zz calls betraying nest location, or possibly use the absence of calling as a signal of danger. This study thus demonstrates that calling near nests could inform both adults and nestlings about the caller's behaviour, and could serve multiple functions. Future studies will need to experimentally test these functions, as well as the other hypotheses reviewed here.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".