Conspecific cues encourage Barn Swallow (<i>Hirundo rustica erythrogaster</i>) prospecting, but not nesting, at new nesting structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shed-like structures are being built to provide Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica erythrogaster) nesting habitat in response to population declines. However, Barn Swallow use of these structures is unavailable in the literature. We conducted three manipulative experiments to test if adding conspecific cues (i.e., vocalizations and decoys) to newly-built structures affected prospecting visits by Barn Swallows (1) during pre-breeding, (2) during post-breeding, and (3) during or after broadcasts of vocalizations compared to before broadcasts. Additionally, we monitored nesting following pre- and post-breeding cues. We built one nesting structure with and one without conspecific cues at each of 10 study sites in southern Ontario, Canada where nesting habitat was recently lost. We detected about twice as many Barn Swallows immediately after conspecific broadcasts compared to before. We did not find substantial differences in abundance and interactions with new nesting structures for other comparisons involving conspecific cues. Following pre-breeding cues at 10 sites, six nests were built in three of 10 structures treated with conspecific cues, compared to five nests in four of 10 structures without cues. In the subsequent breeding season following post-breeding cues at eight sites, four nests were built in two of eight structures treated with conspecific cues, compared to four nests in three of eight structures without cues. Conspecific vocalizations appeared to increase prospecting behaviour, but not the number of nests, at new nesting structures. The paucity of nests on new structures suggests that building shed-like structures may not be an effective method of mitigating loss of nesting habitat.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".