Cavity type influences abundance of nest‐dwelling avian blow flies: an experiment with tree swallows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Diverse assemblages of blood‐feeding parasitic arthropods occupy the nests of birds, and nest temperature and humidity can strongly influence the population dynamics of these ectoparasites, with important implications for parasite–host relationships. 2. This study used two types of nest box that differed in internal microclimates, one constructed of plywood and the other constructed of boles of aspen ( Populus tremuloides Michx.), more closely replicating natural cavities, to examine how nest microclimate affects the prevalence and abundance of nest‐dwelling larval blow flies ( Protocalliphora and Trypocalliphora spp.) in nests of tree swallows ( Tachycineta bicolor Vieillot, 1808). 3. Based on known microclimatic differences between the box types and responses of larval blow flies to different temperatures, it was predicted that the microclimate of plywood boxes would be more favourable for growth and development of larval blow flies, and therefore have higher abundance, and possibly higher prevalence, of larval blow flies. 4. Plywood nest boxes had higher abundance, but not prevalence, of larval blow flies compared with aspen boxes at two different geographical locations in Canada. Nest composition also differed between box types, particularly at one site, where aspen boxes contained more nesting material (grass and feathers) than did plywood boxes. 5. Although it seems probable that microclimate was driving the differences between box types in abundance of larval blow flies, several additional explanations are discussed. These findings may have implications for conservation efforts, particularly those where nest boxes are used to aid in the recovery of declining bird populations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".