Fear affects parental care, which predicts juvenile survival and exacerbates the total cost of fear on demography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fear itself (perceived predation risk) can affect wildlife demography, but the cumulative impact of fear on population dynamics is not well understood. Parental care is arguably what most distinguishes birds and mammals from other taxa, yet only one experiment on wildlife has tested fear effects on parental food provisioning and the repercussions this has for the survival of dependent offspring, and only during early-stage care. We tested the effect of fear on late-stage parental care of mobile dependent offspring, by locating radio-tagged Song Sparrow fledglings and broadcasting predator or non-predator playbacks in their vicinity, measuring their parent's behavior and their own, and tracking the offspring's survival to independence. Fear significantly reduced late-stage parental care, and parental fearfulness (as indexed by their reduction in provisioning when hearing predators) significantly predicted their offspring's condition and survival. Combining results from this experiment with that on early-stage care, we project that fear itself is powerful enough to reduce late-stage survival by 24%, and cumulatively reduce the number of young reaching independence by more than half, 53%. Experiments in invertebrate and aquatic systems demonstrate that fear is commonly as important as direct killing in affecting prey demography, and we suggest focusing more on fear effects and on offspring survival will reveal the same for wildlife.
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".