Host–parasite kinship in a female‐philopatric bird population: evidence from relatedness trend analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conspecific brood parasitism (CBP), an alternative reproductive tactic where some females lay eggs in the nests of other females of the same species, occurs in many animals with egg care. It is particularly common in waterfowl, for reasons that are debated. Many waterfowl females nest near their birthplace, making it likely that some local females are relatives. We analyse brood parasitism in a Hudson Bay population of common eiders, testing predictions from two alternative hypotheses on the role of relatedness in CBP. Some models predict host-parasite relatedness, others predict that parasites avoid close relatives as hosts. To distinguish between the alternatives, we use a novel approach, where the relatedness of host-parasite pairs is tested against the spatial population trend in pairwise relatedness. We estimate parasitism, nest take-over and relatedness with protein fingerprinting and bandsharing analysis of egg albumen, nondestructively sampled from each new egg in the nest throughout the laying period. The results refute the hypothesis that parasites avoid laying eggs in the nests of related hosts, and corroborate the alternative of host-parasite relatedness. With an estimated r of 0.12-0.14, females laying eggs in the same nest are on average closer kin than nesting neighbour females. Absence of a population trend in female pairwise relatedness vs. distance implies that host-parasite relatedness is not only an effect of strong natal philopatry: some additional form of kin bias is also involved.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".