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 benefìted 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 lv both species, although intense defensive responses were adopted by a majority of individuals in the population, the highest intensities associated with the highest nest survival were not.In Reed Warblers, two survival predictors were inversely associated to nest survival.The number of other birds was associated negatively with nest survival whereas the alarm calls were positively associated with it.At the same time these two survival predictors were correlated positively to each other, thus individuals that uttered a high number of alarm calls received the highest number of visits of other birds at their nest.This indicated a possible constraint for Reed Warblers to adopt the highest intensity of this alarm call.I could not find an equivalent constraint for Yellow Warblers and further investigations are warranted to test the ability of their calls used to recruit nesting neighbours during defence and whether additional activity of other birds at the nest is exploited by parasites and predators to better locate their target.his door always open throughout the period I spent at the University of Manitoba.I also thank him for showing me how with intellectual freedom and rigour it is possible to achieve great results.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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 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".