Supplementary feeding increases nestling feather corticosterone early in the breeding season in house sparrows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Several studies on birds have proposed that a lack of invertebrate prey in urbanized areas could be the main cause for generally lower levels of breeding success compared to rural habitats. Previous work on house sparrowsPasser domesticusfound that supplemental feeding in urbanized areas increased breeding success but did not contribute to population growth. Here, we hypothesize that supplementary feeding allows house sparrows to achieve higher breeding success but at the cost of lower nestling quality. As abundant food supplies may permit both high‐ and low‐quality nestlings to survive, we also predict that within‐brood variation in proxies of nestling quality would be larger for supplemental food broods than for unfed broods. As proxies of nestling quality, we considered feather corticosterone (CORTf), body condition (scaled mass index,SMI), and tarsus‐based fluctuating asymmetry (FA). Our hypothesis was only partially supported as we did not find an overall effect of food supplementation onFAorSMI. Rather, food supplementation affected nestling phenotype only early in the breeding season in terms of elevatedCORTflevels and a tendency for more variable within‐broodCORTfandFA. Early food supplemented nests therefore seemed to include at least some nestlings that faced increased stressors during development, possibly due to harsher environmental (e.g., related to food and temperature) conditions early in the breeding season that would increase sibling competition, especially in larger broods. The fact thatCORTfwas positively, rather than inversely, related to nestlingSMIfurther suggests that factors influencingCORTfandSMIare likely operating over different periods or, alternatively, that nestlings in good nutritional condition also invest in high‐quality feathers.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".