Wood ducks and hooded mergansers as interspecific brood parasites: An evaluation of parasitic egg survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Conspecific and interspecific brood parasitism are alternate reproductive strategies more pervasive in waterfowl than in any other group of birds. While previous research has measured costs incurred by nest hosts incubating parasitized clutches, few studies have focused on the relative success of parasites. Here, we evaluated the success of wood duck (Aix sponsa) and hooded merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus) eggs laid parasitically in Louisiana and Mississippi. We monitored nest boxes, assigned eggs in each nest as host or parasitic, and determined the number of eggs that hatched and failed. Across all study areas (1994–1999 and 2020–2023), we monitored 1750 wood duck and 377 hooded merganser nests; ~13% of wood duck and ~24% of hooded merganser nests were interspecifically parasitized. We modeled egg survival of 2925 host and 691 parasitic eggs from 197 successful nests (≥1 hatched egg, regardless of species). Wood duck eggs laid in hooded merganser nests had lower survival [0.293, CI = 95% credible intervals (after, CI) = 0.176, 0.439] than hooded merganser eggs (0.762, CI = 0.704, 0.810) laid in wood duck nests. Clutch size negatively influenced parasitic wood duck egg survival (β = −.24, CI = −0.39, −0.10) but had a slight positive influence on parasitic hooded merganser eggs (β = .08, CI = 0.04, 0.12). Our results revealed that hooded merganser eggs experience higher success when laid parasitically in wood duck nests, whereas wood duck eggs experience lower success when laid parasitically in hooded merganser nests. Our results reveal new complexity in waterfowl interspecific brood parasitism, where the success of parasitic eggs is species‐, host‐, and context‐specific.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".