MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2337837541 · doi:10.14288/1.0095062

Behavioral interactions between red-winged blackbirds and long-billed marsh wrens and their role in the evolution of the redwing polygynous mating system

2010· article· en· W2337837541 sur OpenAlexaff
Jaroslav Picman

Notice bibliographique

RevuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueAvian ecology and behavior
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPolygynyMatingBiologyMating systemZoologyEcologyDemographyPopulation

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Behavioral interactions between red-winged blackbirds and long-billed marsh wrens are an important selective force influencing redwing reproductive tactics- Marsh wrens, which destroy redwing eggs and kill redwing nestlings, were the most important nest mortality factor in my redwing population and possibly also in other marshes throughout the range of sympatry between these species. This nest mortality factor probably selected for four different adaptations through which redwings reduce the impact of marsh wrens on their nesting. First, redwings of both sexes aggressively exclude marsh wrens from the vicinity of their nests. Second, redwings avoid marsh wrens by breeding in sparser vegetation which is more easily defended against wrens. Marsh wrens, on the other hand, seem to prefer denser vegetation where they are more likely to avoid redwing aggression. These differences in habitat selection by redwings and marsh wrens result in a spatial segregation of their breeding areas. Third, female redwings reduce the impact of marsh wrens by clumping their nests and hence improving their nest defense through cooperation with their neighbors. Fourth, females preferentially join older males and harems with older females probably because such older birds are more efficient in nest defense against marsh wrens. Breeding in a harem with experienced birds increases a female's chance of reproductive success. Redwings exhibit two forms of polygyny. True harem polygyny has probably evolved as a compromise between two selective forces: (1) high nest predation rates which drive the evolution of the clumping tendency by females; and (2) seasonally abundant, predictable, and relatively uniformly distributed food resources in marshes and nearby uplands, which presumably favor the evolution of territoriality. As a result, females breed colonially within male territories. The most important prediction from this hypothesis is that harem size selected for in various populations should be correlated with the intensity of predation. This is because females should be selected to adjust their degree of clumping and hence their degree of cooperation in nest defense to the average nest predation pressure. This prediction is supported by data from various redwing populations throughout North America. In addition, redwings also exhibit resource defense polygyny. The presence of older experienced birds appears to be the most important factor responsible for a great degree of variation in the size of a harem attracted to individual male territories. Thus territories with older experienced males and females attract large harems, whereas those without experienced birds acguire small harems. Preferences of females for older males and for harems with older females could be explained in terms of a greater contribution to nest defense by such experienced birds as compared with young, inexperienced individuals- The pattern of distribution of older experienced individuals in the marsh, therefore, determines the mating pattern in a breeding redwing population. The distribution of older experienced individuals of both sexes is determined by their strong tendency to return to the same territories year after year. Consequently, mating success of newly established males is initially determined by the number of females acquired by previous territory holders and their overwinter survival rates. These observations indicate that mating success of any given male is a function of: (1) the number of old, experienced females breeding on his territory; (2) attractiveness of his territory to new females as reflected by the number of older females; and (3) attractiveness of his territory to new females in terms of his age-related experience. Evidence from this study suggests that to explain the adaptive value of redwing polygyny, we have to consider both the cooperative and competitive interactions between females. A model combining adaptive values of true harem polygyny and resource defense polygyny is presented.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,003
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,006

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,006
Tête enseignante GPT0,179
Écart entre enseignants0,173 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations9
Publié2010
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Même sujetAvian ecology and behaviorTravaux en français237 207