Lesser Woodcreepers excavate nest cavities in trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To understand the evolution, life-history tradeoffs, and population ecology of cavity nesters, it is critical to identify the avian lineages and circumstances in which birds excavate tree cavities. Woodcreepers (Furnariidae: Dendrocolaptinae; 56 species) are considered non-excavators dependent on existing cavities. We overturn this assumption by providing definitive evidence that the Lesser Woodcreeper (Xiphorhynchus fuscus, 23 g) is a facultative tree-cavity excavator. From 2007 to 2022 in the Atlantic forest of Misiones, Argentina, Lesser Woodcreepers nested in preexisting tree crevices (4 nests), or excavated cavities in trunks of large-diameter trees in advanced stages of decay (mean diameter: 58 cm, range: 22–121 cm, 22 nests). Nest entrances were vertically elongated and chambers were usually pocket like, excavated in the exterior of the trees (sapwood), with floors that curved along the trees’ circumference. Excavating woodcreepers pulled out elongated pieces of spongy, fibrous decayed wood, tapping only when inside cavities. Published and online photographs of nests of Xiphorhynchus species suggest that excavation may be widespread in the genus. Our observations that woodcreepers tore out elongated pieces of spongy wood (rather than hammering) are consistent with the idea that their long, thin bills are more resistant to torsion and less resistant to impact compared to the stouter bills of other excavators in Passeriformes and Piciformes. Research has tended to focus on birds with chisel-shaped bills, perforating harder sapwood to create nesting chambers in the center of heartrot-infected trees (resulting in typical woodpecker cavities, with circular floors). We hypothesize that Lesser Woodcreepers have adopted an alternative strategy, selecting large trunks with soft outer wood (sapwood), stopping their excavation radially if they reach harder wood, and then expanding the nest chamber laterally. Furnariidae may offer a useful model family for understanding ecological and evolutionary factors that influence cavity excavation. We provide a Spanish translation in Supplementary Material.
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) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".