Data from: Food supplementing peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius) nests increases reproductive success without changes in parental mean provisioning rate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parents are expected to exhibit intermediate levels of investment in parental care that reflect the trade-off between current versus future reproduction. Providing parents with supplemental food may allow for increased care to the current brood (additive model), re-allocation of parental effort to other behaviours such as self-maintenance (substitution model) or may provide parents with a buffer against provisioning shortfalls (insurance model). We investigated the impact of parental food supplementation on provisioning behaviour and breeding success in Arctic-breeding peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus tundrius) over five successive breeding seasons (2013-2017). We found that supplemental feeding had no impact on mean provisioning rates, yet resulted in increased nestling survival probability, increased nestling body mass, and decreased variance in nestling body mass and provisioning rates. These results are consistent with parents adopting a hybrid of the additive and substitution models. We suggest that food supplementation enables increased investment in other forms of parental care (e.g., nest defence, brooding) without altering mean provisioning rates. The lack of observed effects on mean provisioning rates, coupled with increased survival and body mass of offspring, suggests a potential reallocation of parental effort. The findings contribute to understanding the responses of peregrine falcons to food supplementation, highlighting the need for future studies to explore broader environmental contexts and potential long-term effects on parental survival and future reproduction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".