Birds do not use social learning of landmarks to locate favorable nest sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Experiments since the classic studies of Niko Tinbergen have provided evidence that animals use visual landmarks to navigate. We tested whether birds use visual landmarks to relocate their nest sites by presenting two species of cavity nesting birds with a dyad of nest boxes with different white markings around the entrance, a circle or a triangle. When the two boxes were erected in close proximity on the same tree, pied flycatchers Ficedula hypoleuca and blue tits Cyanistes caeruleus confused the entrance of their nest both when the boxes had different external markings and when they were unmarked. Most females added nest material to both boxes of a dyad and one third of the flycatchers laid eggs in both boxes although a female can only incubate the eggs in one nest at a time. Thus, the birds did not use external markings around cavity entrances for orientation. We also tried to replicate a previous study purporting to show that migratory birds use social learning of the external appearance of nests from other species. However, pied flycatchers did not choose boxes with the same painted markings as those applied to nests of resident great tits Parus major which were judged to be high quality “demonstrators” from their large clutch sizes. We argue that conclusions from previous studies on social learning based on external markings as landmarks on nest cavities in birds need to be reconsidered.
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) | 0.000 | 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".