To forage or hide? Threat-sensitive foraging behaviour in wild, non-reproductive passerine birds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Because antipredator behaviours are costly, the threat-sensitive predator avoidance hypothesis predicts that individual animals should express predator-avoidance behaviour proportionally to the perceived threat posed by the predator. Here, we experimentally tested this hypothesis by providing wild passerine birds supplemental food (on a raised feeding platform) at either 1 or 4 m from the edge of forest cover (potential refuge), in either the presence or absence of a nearby simulated predation threat (a sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus model). Compared with the control treatment, we observed proportionally fewer bird visits to the food patch, and the birds took longer to re-emerge from forest refuge and return to feed at the food patch, after the hawk presentation than before it. The observed threat-sensitive latency-to-return response was stronger when the food patch was further away from the nearest refuge. Overall, our results are consistent with the predictions of the threat-sensitive predator avoidance hypothesis in that wild passerine birds (primarily black-capped chickadees Poecile atricapillus) exhibited more intense antipredator behavioural responses with increasing level of apparent threat. The birds were thus sensitive to their local perceived threat of predation and traded-off safety from predation (by refuging) and foraging gains in open habitat in a graded, threat-sensitive manner.
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".