High levels of extra‐pair paternity in an isolated, low‐density, island population of tree swallows (<i>Tachycineta bicolor</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Molecular genetic studies have suggested that apparently nonbreeding males ('floaters') may account for a significant proportion of extra-pair paternity (EPP) in avian populations. Attempts to determine the influence of breeding density on EPP are therefore confounded by the presence of a subpopulation of floaters whose numbers are difficult to estimate. To study EPP in a tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) population with few floaters, we chose a nestbox grid on an island with an excess of available breeding sites and very few floaters. We obtained DNA samples from 13 complete families and performed DNA profiling on them using four microsatellite loci. For comparison, we also obtained a sample of 58 extra-pair young (EPY) from a mainland population typed at five microsatellite loci. Paternity assignments among resident males in both populations were made using the microsatellite profiles and a likelihood-based statistical method. Of the 67 island nestlings typed, we found 37 (55%) nestlings from 11 (85%) different nests that were EPY. The proportion of nestlings that were EPY and the proportion of broods containing EPY did not differ significantly between island and mainland populations studied previously. There was no significant difference between island and mainland populations in the proportion of extra-pair paternities assigned among neighbouring resident males. Male breeding density does not appear to affect the ability of female tree swallows to obtain extra-pair fertilizations, at least over the range of densities studied so far. The rate of EPP has remained remarkably consistent over many years, studies and populations implying an important role of active female choice in determining EPP.
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 | 0.000 | 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".