Nest defense by Mountain Bluebirds (<i>Sialia currucoides</i>) is related to their sex and brood characteristics but not morphological attributes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within species, bird parents defend their nests with different levels of intensity. Previous studies have examined several hypotheses for this variation by looking at factors such as morphological characteristics of the parents and the characteristics of the brood, but few have controlled for multiple factors simultaneously. Here we examined a broad range of factors that may influence the nest defense behaviour of Mountain Bluebirds ( Sialia currucoides (Bechstein, 1798)), including the adult's morphology (sex, age, plumage colour, body size, and body condition) and characteristics of their brood (size, hatch date, and stage of nestling development). Parental aggression was triggered using a taxidermy mount of an American red squirrel ( Tamiasciurus hudsonicus (Erxleben, 1777)). We found no relationship between nest defense and any morphological characteristic of adults, but the intensity of nest defense was positively correlated with the stage of offspring development, clutch size, and hatch date consistent with parental investment theory. Males also defended nests more strongly than females, consistent with the premise of the renesting hypothesis that males have fewer future opportunities to breed and, therefore, are more invested in the current brood. Our results provide strong support for parental investment theory and renesting as the primary drivers of nest defense intensity in breeding birds.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".