Is Territory Defence related to Plumage Ornaments in the King Penguin <i>Aptenodytes patagonicus</i>?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Colourful ornaments in monogamous birds may be directed at potential mates or other conspecifics to signal individual condition, reproductive status or fighting ability, especially in monogamous and territorial species. We investigated whether the size of the orange auricular patch may be an indicator of aggressiveness in the king penguin Aptenodytes patagonicus, a monogamous and territorial seabird. The relationship between auricular patch size and defence behaviour was explored relative to territory location (centre vs. periphery of the colony), period of reproduction (early vs. late), state of reproduction (incubation vs. brooding) and sex. The proportion of time spent in territorial defence and the rate of aggressive behaviours were positively correlated with auricular patch size, mainly because central birds were more aggressive than peripheral birds and also had larger patch sizes. The period of reproduction, state of reproduction and sex did not interact with patch size to affect aggressiveness. Our results suggest that the size of the auricular patch in king penguins may be a reliable signal allowing individuals to evaluate the quality of mates or competitors in terms of aggressiveness. Whether aggressiveness is directly linked to patch size or indirectly through body condition, however, remains to be determined. In any event, birds with larger patches seem to gain central territories in the colony, thereby increasing their reproductive success. Finally, our study adds to the growing evidence that the evolution of sexually monomorphic ornaments may stem from mutual sexual selection.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".