Reproductive biology of the Rusty-breasted Nunlet ( <i>Nonnula rubecula</i> )
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The genus Nonnula (Galbuliformes: Bucconidae) includes 6 species of nunlets, understory insectivores of humid Neotropical forest. Like the rest of their lineage (Galbuliformes, Piciformes, Coraciiformes, Bucerotiformes, Trogoniformes, and Leptosomiformes), Nonnula were speculated to nest in cavities or burrows, either underground, in mounds of leaf litter, in trees, or in arboreal termitaria. From 2014 to 2020 we studied 17 nests of Rusty-breasted Nunlet (Nonnula rubecula) at Cruce Caballero Provincial Park in the Atlantic Forest of Misiones, Argentina. From the outside, nests looked like the burrows excavated by relatives in Malacoptila, but nunlets excavated only the floor, carpeted it with leaves, built a roof frame of twigs and rachises, and finally covered the whole structure with leaf litter from the surrounding area. A clutch of 4 (occasionally 3) white eggs with mean dimensions 20.1 (SD 0.8) × 16.8 (SD 0.3) mm (2.8 [SD 0.3] g; n = 5) was laid on alternate days, and incubated 17–18 d. The pink, naked hatchlings, with eyes sealed shut, scrambled around the nest chamber and came to the tunnel entrance by day 3, similar to other Bucconidae. Two secretive adults incubated, brooded, and fed nestlings. Fledglings hopped out of the nest at 17–19 d, sometimes returned before leaving definitively, and apparently could not fly. The probability of a nest surviving the 42 d from laying to fledging was 0.40, comparable to some tree-cavity-nesting birds in our study area (but 95% confidence intervals were large: 0.11–0.69). There is no evidence that any Nonnula use tree cavities or excavate burrows. We propose that Nonnula are unique in their lineage in building a dome-shaped nest at ground level. This habit may have evolved from relatives that excavate underground burrows, surround the entrance with a collar of twigs, and cover the excavation site with leaf litter.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".