Behavioural responses of male ruffed grouse (<i>Bonasa umbellus</i>, L.) to playbacks of drumming displays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Birds use a variety of sounds in their courtship displays, but the majority of behavioural studies have focused on vocalizations. In contrast, little is known about how non‐vocal sounds, or sonations, are used, even though many avian species produce them. The ruffed grouse ( Bonasa umbellus ) is a useful species to examine non‐vocal sounds because they lack vocal components in their courtship and rely on a non‐vocal sound to attract mates and defend their territory. Their courtship display, known as “drumming,” is created by the wings, and the number of pulses and speed (pulse rate) varies significantly among males. Anecdotal evidence suggested that males can affect the drumming behaviour of neighbouring males in drumming “duels” in an analogous way to song contests. Here, we test whether males do respond to the playback of drumming sounds of an unfamiliar male. Using a portable speaker system, we played recordings of drumming displays to males that were actively drumming themselves. Throughout each playback, we recorded the drumming behaviour of target males so that we could assess whether drumming activity changes following a playback as well as whether males change the speed of their display. Overall, male grouse were equally likely to approach the speaker or continue drumming following a playback. For those males that continued drumming, their drumming pulse rate was significantly faster following playbacks, but they drummed less often. These results indicate that male ruffed grouse do respond to drumming sounds, but the specific response differs among males. Because the differential response was not related to colour phase or whether a male was drumming in proximity to other males, we suggest that the response of individuals likely varies with other traits, such as hormone levels or behavioural syndrome.
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".