MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3191483496 · doi:10.1007/s00265-021-03045-w

Egg covering in cavity nesting birds may prevent nest usurpation by other species

2021· article· en· W3191483496 on OpenAlexafffund
Tore Slagsvold, Karen L. Wiebe

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Ecology and Sociobiology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversitetet i OsloCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNest (protein structural motif)PredationBiologyNest boxParusEcologyAnimal ecologyFicedulaZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Some birds cover their eggs with nest material when they leave to forage. It has been suggested that such egg-covering aids thermoregulation or prevents predation but here we present a new hypothesis, that secondary cavity-nesting species cover their eggs to prevent nest usurpation by other birds. When the bottom of the cavity is dark, as when eggs are covered by nest material, it may be difficult for a prospecting competitor to see whether a defending nest owner or a predator is hiding inside the cavity. Competitors may therefore hesitate to enter dark cavities. We filmed 21 great tit (Parus major) nests during the egg-laying period and found that the female spent bouts of highly variable length outside the nest box (range 0.3–250 min,n = 51), so prospecting small passerines would have difficulty predicting whether an aggressive tit owner was in the box or would soon return. We presented prospecting male pied flycatchers (Ficedula hypoleuca) with a dyad of boxes (n = 93), each containing a great tit nest but only one with visible eggs. Flycatchers hesitated more to enter a nest box with no visible tit eggs than a box with exposed eggs. This was most evident for nest boxes with dark versus light interior paint, supporting the idea that better interior illumination makes prospecting birds more confident about entering an unfamiliar cavity. The usurpation and predation hypotheses are not mutually exclusive because both competitors and small predators may hesitate to enter dark, enclosed spaces if visibility is low. Significance statement Some birds deposit a layer of material on top of the eggs when they leave the nest. Several hypotheses have been proposed for such egg covering, for example that it may insulate the eggs and reduce the risk of nest predation. We propose a new hypothesis, namely that secondary hole-nesting birds cover their eggs when they leave the nest to prevent usurpation of the cavity by other birds. Great tits that we filmed at the nest during the egg-laying period could be absent for long periods. To test the hypothesis, we presented male pied flycatchers, potential nest competitors, with a dyad of nest boxes, each containing a great tit nest but only one with visible tit eggs. In support of the prediction, prospecting flycatchers hesitated to enter dark cavities with dark floors relative to boxes with exposed, reflective eggs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral Ecology and SociobiologySame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207