Prevalence and consequences of ants and other arthropods in active nests of Midwestern birds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many organisms build nests which create unique microhabitats that are exploited by other animals. In turn, these nest colonizers may positively or negatively influence nest owners. Bird nests are known to harbor communities that include both harmful and possibly beneficial species. We quantified the nest arthropod communities of 10 bird species in Illinois, USA, along a land-use gradient, focusing on ant prevalence. We found eight ant species in nests, and for three species, at least part of their colonies inhabited nests. The odorous house ant (Tapinoma sessile (Say, 1836)) was the most common species and maintained the largest colonies in nest material. Forest-cover percentage surrounding bird nests best predicted ant-colony presence. There was little evidence that ant presence influenced abundance or prevalence of other arthropods within nests with the exception of Brown Thrasher (Toxostoma rufum (Linnaeus, 1758)) nests, where a negative association between T. sessile presence and abundance of fly larvae was found. Breeding success did not differ between nests with and without ant colonies for any bird species. Ant species that exhibit polydomy and nomadism may be more likely to occupy ephemeral resources like bird nests than other ants. How widespread this phenomenon is and the degree of commensalism that both parties experience is unclear and warrants further investigation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".