Phenotypic assortative mating and within-pair sexual dimorphism and its influence on breeding success and offspring quality in Magellanic penguins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined within-pair sexual dimorphism and phenotypic assortative mating in Magellanic penguins (Spheniscus magellanicus) breeding in six colonies located on the Patagonian coast (Argentina). All measured phenotypic traits except the number of pectoral spots differed between the sexes; bill depth and flipper length were the most and least dimorphic traits, respectively. We found assortative mating by bill depth and body mass. The similarity in body condition within pairs was close to significant. When we performed separate correlations for birds that bred successfully, i.e., raised one or two offsprings, and birds that did not attempt to breed or bred unsuccessfully, only the successful breeders showed assortative mating by body mass. In addition, we attempted to relate the body size of each member of the pair and the degree of sexual dimorphism within pairs to the breeding performance of individuals, which was measured as brood size, and body condition and immunocompetence of offspring. We found that pairs that were less dimorphic in flipper length raised more offspring. This effect was due to female flipper length per se and not to the relative difference in flipper length between members of the pair. Females with larger flippers had a higher probability of raising two chicks. No effects of body measurements or degree of sexual dimorphism on body condition or T-cell-mediated immune response of offspring were found. We discuss these results in the context of potential factors responsible for the maintenance of sexual size dimorphism in this species.
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".