Aromatic plants, nest bacterial diversity, and nestling condition in Corsican blue tits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the ‘nest protection hypothesis', some passerines incorporate fresh aromatic plants into their nests which reduce pathogens that can negatively affect nestlings. We experimentally evaluated the effect of five aromatic plant species on the nest bacterial microbiota of Corsican blue tits Cyanistes caeruleus . The experimental addition of aromatic plants decreased bacterial diversity in nests collected post‐hatching. We also detected a weak effect of aromatic plants on nest bacterial composition. In the observational approach, we tested the effect of these plants on the bacterial microbiota diversity and composition of eggshells and nests, and on nestling condition and behaviour. Bacterial diversity decreased with the quantity of aromatic plants in nests containing nestlings and on eggshells during incubation, but only in one of the three studied populations. Again, there was a weak effect of aromatic plants on bacterial composition in nests and no effect on eggshell bacterial composition. Finally, nests with a high quantity of aromatic plants tended to have bigger and taller nestlings in two out of three populations. The quantity of aromatic plants was not associated with speed of feather development and with docility. Our results support the ‘nest protection hypothesis', while highlighting differences in the effect of aromatic plants among populations. To our knowledge, our study is the first to reveal a correlation between the presence of aromatic plants and the bacterial diversity of nests and eggshells in a natural bird population, and to demonstrate experimentally the direct effect of five aromatic plant species on bacterial diversity in nest 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) | 0.000 | 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".