Songbirds use scent cues to relocate to feeding sites after displacement: An experiment in great tits (Parus major)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Air-borne chemicals are highly abundant sensory cues and their use in navigation might be one of the major evolutionary mechanisms explaining the development of olfaction in animals. Despite solid evidence for the importance of olfaction in avian life (e.g., foraging or mating), the importance of chemical cues in avian orientation remains controversial. In particular, songbirds are sorely neglected models, despite their remarkable orientation skills. Here we show that great tits ( Parus major ) require olfactory cues to orientate toward winter-feeding sites within their home range after displacement. Birds that received an olfaction-depriving treatment were impaired in homing. However, the return rates between olfaction-deprived and control individuals did not differ. Birds with decreased perception of olfactory cues required more time to return to the winter feeding sites. This effect became apparent when the distance between the releasing and capture sites was greater. Our results indicate that even in a familiar environment with possible visual landmarks, scent cues might serve as an important source of information for orientation.
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) | 0.001 | 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".