Color expression in experimentally regrown feathers of an overwintering migratory bird: implications for signaling and seasonal interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plumage coloration in birds plays a critical role in communication and can be under selection throughout the annual cycle as a sexual and social signal. However, for migratory birds, little is known about the acquisition and maintenance of colorful plumage during the nonbreeding period. Winter habitat could influence the quality of colorful plumage, ultimately carrying over to influence sexual selection and social interactions during the breeding period. In addition to the annual growth of colorful feathers, feather loss from agonistic interactions or predator avoidance could require birds to replace colorful feathers in winter or experience plumage degradation. We hypothesized that conditions on the wintering grounds of migratory birds influence the quality of colorful plumage. We predicted that the quality of American redstart (Setophaga ruticilla) tail feathers regrown after experimental removal in Jamaica, West Indies, would be positively associated with habitat quality, body condition, and testosterone. Both yearling (SY) and adult (ASY) males regrew feathers with lower red chroma, suggesting reduced carotenoid content. While we did not observe a change in hue in ASY males, SY males shifted from yellow to orange plumage resembling experimentally regrown ASY feathers. We did not observe any effects of habitat, testosterone, or mass change. Our results demonstrate that redstarts are limited in their ability to adequately replace colorful plumage, regardless of habitat, in winter. Thus, feather loss on the nonbreeding grounds can affect social signals, potentially negatively carrying over to the breeding period.
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) | 0.001 | 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".