The relationships of breeding stage to daytime singing behaviour and song perch height in Bermuda white‐eyed vireos <i>Vireo griseus bermudianus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bird song is crucial for attracting mates and defending territories, but different types of song or different singing behaviours may be involved in acquiring or maintaining each resource. Furthermore, male songbirds may adjust when and where they sing throughout the breeding season, depending on their breeding stage. However, such relationships remain untested in several avian taxa. Here, we studied male Bermuda white‐eyed vireos Vireo griseus bermudianus , a passerine with two distinct song types (discrete and rambling), to test the mate attraction and territory defence hypotheses. We compare song production and song perch height among different stages of the breeding season and during the non‐breeding season. We show that male vireos produce both song types during the breeding and non‐breeding seasons, suggesting dual roles in mate choice and territorial defence. Song production did not differ significantly between the breeding and non‐breeding seasons, but, within the breeding season, males without nesting duties sang significantly more songs than males with nesting duties. Song perch height was higher during the breeding season versus non‐breeding season, among males without nesting duties compared to males with nesting duties, and when males produced discrete versus rambling songs. Our findings suggest that male vireos increase their conspicuousness to prospecting females by increasing song production and song perch height, and that they sing during the breeding and non‐breeding seasons to defend year‐round territories. Collectively, our study supports the mate attraction and territory defence hypotheses of bird song.
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 | 0.001 | 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".