Variation among individuals in photoperiod responses: Effects of breeding schedule, photoperiod, and age‐related photoperiodic experience in birds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many organisms use environmental cues to regulate reproductive function in order to time reproduction to coincide with favorable environmental conditions. Whereas we understand much about how environmental cues are used to time reproduction, we know relatively little about variation among individuals in responsiveness to environmental cues. However, this variation among individuals may represent a crucial component of a population's capacity to respond to changing environmental conditions. In this study, we quantify variation among individuals in photoperiod responsiveness of the avian reproductive system and investigate three potential underlying sources of this variation in environmental cue responsiveness. Specifically, we tested whether age-related photoperiodic experience, strength of the photoperiodic cue (day length), and degree of flexibility in breeding schedule influenced the degree of variation observed in experimental studies of seven species of cardueline finches. Overall, we found a high degree of variation among individuals in photoperiod response, and this was influenced by experimental photoperiod and breeding schedule. As experimental photoperiod became longer, the degree of variation declined. Opportunistic breeders showed greater variation in response compared with more seasonal breeders. We found no effect of age-related photoperiodic experience in one species for which we could examine this factor. The results of this study highlight the extent to which individuals can vary in their response to environmental cues and point to both species ecology and characteristics of the cue as important influences on the degree of this variation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".