NEST PREDATION AND INTERSPECIFIC NESTING ASSOCIATIONS INVOLVING PLUMBEOUS KITE (ICTINIA PLUMBEA) AND BECARDS (PACHYRAMPHUS SPP.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract ∙ Interspecific nesting associations are among several strategies employed by birds to reduce the risk of nest predation. Plumbeous Kites (Ictinia plumbea) aggressively defend their nest sites from potential predators, and participate in a little‐studied nesting association with various species of becards (Pachyramphus spp.). Here, we describe nesting associations involving Ictinia plumbea, other raptors, wasps, and becards, based on field observations from 1997 to 2016 in two ecoregions of Argentina, the Atlantic Forest and the Humid Chaco. We found 48% of Ictinia plumbea nests in close proximity to one or more becard nests. Kite nests were already active when becards began building. Green‐backed Becards (Pachyramphus viridis) were the most frequent associate, nesting 30–150 cm from active kite nests and sometimes appropriating their nest material. When potential predators came near their nests, becards appeared unable to drive them off, but their warning calls alerted the kites, which drove 13 species of potential nest predators away from kite‐becard nesting associations. Two kite nests – both unaccompanied by becards – were confirmed to have failed. At one, a Red‐breasted Toucan (Ramphastos dicolorus) captured the young kite nestling during a brief absence of both parents. We propose that (1) becards select nest sites near kites and benefit from the kites’ aggressive nest defense, and (2) kites tolerate becards, possibly gaining a small advantage from their warning calls. We also found becards nesting beside five other species of raptors, and wasps. Network analysis revealed a higher diversity of protective nesting associations in the Chaco than in the Atlantic Forest, but Ictinia plumbea and wasps were the most frequent nest associates of becards in both systems. Quantitative studies of nest‐site selection and nest survival in becards and kites are needed to reveal the behavioral mechanisms and fitness costs/benefits of this widespread interspecific nest association. Resumen ∙ Predación de nidos y asociaciones interespecíficas de nidos involucrando Milano Plomizo (Ictinia plumbea) y anambés (Pachyramphus spp.) Las interacciones interespecíficas de nidos se cuentan entre varias estrategias que emplean las aves para reducir el riesgo de la depredación de nidos. Los Milanos Plomizos (Ictinia plumbea) protegen agresivamente sus nidos de posibles predadores y participan en una asociación poco estudiada con varias especies de anambés (Pachyramphus spp.). Aquí, describimos asociaciones de protección de nidos que involucran Ictinia plumbea, otras rapaces, avispas y anambés en base a observaciones de campo entre 1997 y 2016 en dos ecoregiones de la Argentina, la Selva Atlántica y el Chaco Húmedo. El 48% de los nidos de Ictinia plumbea se encontraban muy cerca de uno o más nidos de anambé. Los nidos del milano ya estaban activos cuando los anambés empezaron a construir. El Anambé Verdoso (Pachyramphus viridis) fue el socio más frecuente, anidando a 30–150 cm de nidos activos del milano, y a veces apropiándose del material de su nido. Cuando se acercaba un potencial predador, los anambés parecían incapaces de alejarlo, pero sus llamadas alertaron a los milanos, que alejaron a 13 especies de posibles predadores de las asociaciones de nidos milano‐anambé. Dos nidos de milano – ambos sin acompañamiento de un nido de anambé – se confirmaron como fracasados. En uno, un Tucán de Pico Verde (Ramphastos dicolorus) capturó el pichón de milano recién nacido, durante una breve ausencia de ambos padres. Proponemos que (1) los anambés seleccionan sitios para anidar al lado de los milanos y se benefician por la defensa agresiva de estos, y (2) los milanos toleran a los anambés, posiblemente obteniendo una ventaja por sus llamadas de alerta. Además, encontramos anambés anidando junto a otras cinco especies de rapaces, y avispas. Análisis de redes reveló una mayor diversidad de asociaciones de protección de nidos en el Chaco que en la Selva Atlántica, pero Ictinia plumbea y avispas fueron los socios más frecuentes de los anambés en ambos sistemas. Se necesitan estudios cuantitativos de selección de sitios para anidar y supervivencia de nidos en anambés y milanos para revelar los mecanismos comportamentales, así como también los costos y beneficios en cuanto al éxito reproductivo, de esta asociación interespecífica de nidos.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".