Age‐related differences in plumage characteristics of male tree swallows <i>Tachycineta bicolor</i> : hue and brightness signal different aspects of individual quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Age‐related differences in plumage characteristics of birds can be the result of differential survival of more ornamented individuals, within‐individual changes in plumage attributes with age, or a combination of both. In this study, we investigated age‐class related differences in plumage attributes of male tree swallows Tachycineta bicolor by performing both cross‐sectional and longitudinal analyses. Male tree swallows in their first breeding season do not display delayed plumage maturation, and possess, like experienced breeders, metallic green to metallic blue iridescent plumage on their dorsal surface. Our results showed that, at the population level, older males were brighter and reflected light maximally at shorter wavelengths (i.e. were more blue). Differences in plumage brightness were most likely caused by changes within individuals as males increased in brightness between the first time they were captured and the subsequent year. Differences in hue, however, were not due to within‐individual changes, but rather appear to be the result of greener individuals having lower survival and/or nest site fidelity. Indeed, relatively dull, greener birds had a lower probability of being recaptured the subsequent year. In contrast, we found that if birds captured in their first year as breeding adults were relatively bright, hue was not related to the probability of recapture. These results suggest that plumage attributes in male tree swallows have the potential of being honest signals of quality. Furthermore, plumage brightness and plumage hue might signal different aspects of male quality 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 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".