A comparative approach to the study of avian nest defence : experience and adaptive significance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study focused on nest defence of two passerine species whose reproductive success is decreased by acts of brood parasitism and nest predation.My objectives were two-fold.First, I determined whether a threatening experience at the nest triggered a modification in the expression of nest defence, and, secondly, whether intensely defensive individuals benefted by achieving higher nest survival compared with less responsive individuals.The species studied were the Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia) and Reed Warbler (Acrocephalus scirpaceus) parasitized by the Brown-headed Cowbird (lt[olothus ater) and Common Cuckoo (Cuculus canorus), respectively.There is considerable literature that reveals the ability of Yellow Warblers to discriminate its enemies, but there is less evidence that the same ability exists in the Reed Warbler.In Chapter, I fill this gap by testing whether Reed Warblers discriminated among a brood parasite, a nest predator and an non-threatening species.Results revealed that Reed \ilarbler not only discriminated among threats, but it also adjusted its defensive behaviour relative the risk each species poses at different nesting stages.The type ofthreat and the nesting stage thus influenced most Reed Warbler defensive responses whose modulation was not, however, influenced by the reproductive value of the nest content (e.g., number and age of offspring).The only exception was one type of alarm callthat was influenced by the ofpring age but not by the threat type.In the second and third chapters, I tested whether defensive intensities of both species were shaped by individual or social learning.With mounted specimens, clutch manipulations and playbacks, I simulated events of parasitism, egg removal and Galloway, Jim Hare, and Nate Lovejoy.They, together with Mark Abrahams and Darren Gillis, provided comments and questions that, directly or
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 | 0.001 | 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".