Effects of manipulated levels of predation threat on parental provisioning and nestling begging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Parental provisioning behavior is a major determinant of offspring growth and survival, but high provisioning rates might come at the cost of increased predation threat. Parents should thus adjust provisioning activity according to current predation threat levels. Moreover, life-history theory predicts that response to predation threat should be correlated with investment in current reproduction. We experimentally manipulated perceived predation threat in free-living great tits (Parus major) by presenting parents with a nest predator model while monitoring different aspects of provisioning behavior and nestling begging. Experiments were conducted in 2 years differing greatly in ecological conditions, including food availability. We further quantified male territorial aggressiveness and male and female exploratory tendency. Parents adjusted provisioning according to current levels of threat in an apparently adaptive way. They delayed nest visits during periods of elevated perceived predation threat and subsequently compensated for lost feeding opportunities by increasing provisioning once the immediate threat had diminished. Nestling begging increased after elevated levels of predation threat, but returned to baseline levels by the end of the experiment, suggesting that parents had fully compensated for lost feeding opportunities. There was no evidence for a link between male exploration behavior or aggressiveness and provisioning behavior. In contrast, fast-exploring females provisioned at higher rates, but only in the year with poor environmental conditions, which might indicate a greater willingness to invest in current reproduction in general. Future work should assess whether these personality-related differences in delivery rates under harsher conditions came at a cost of reduced residual reproductive value.
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".