MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106841717 · doi:10.1017/s1464793101005784

Avian egg size: variation within species and inflexibility within individuals

2002· review· en· W2106841717 on OpenAlexafffund
Julian K. Christians

Bibliographic record

VenueBiological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSimon Fraser University
KeywordsAvian clutch sizeBiologyHeritabilityTraitMaternal effectVariation (astronomy)PopulationAnimal scienceZoologyEcologyReproductionOffspringEvolutionary biologyDemographyPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Egg size is a widely-studied trait and yet the causes and consequences of variation in this trait remain poorly understood. Egg size varies greatly within many avian species, with the largest egg in a population generally being at least 50% bigger, and sometimes twice as large, as the smallest. Generally, approximately 70% of the variation in egg mass is due to variation between rather than within clutches, although there are some cases of extreme intra-clutch egg-size variation. Despite the large amount of variation in egg size between females, this trait is highly consistent within individuals between breeding attempts; the repeatability of egg size is generally above 0.6 and tends to be higher than that of clutch size or laying date. Heritability estimates also tend to be much higher for egg size (> 0.5) than for clutch size or laying date (< 0.5). As expected, given the high repeatability and heritability of egg size, supplemental food had no statistically significant effect on this trait in 18 out of 28 (64%) studies. Where dietary supplements do increase egg size, the effect is never more than 13% of the control values and is generally much less. Similarly, ambient temperature during egg formation generally explains less than 15% of the variation in egg size. In short, egg size appears to be a characteristic of individual females, and yet the traits of a female that determine egg size are not clear. Although egg size often increases with female age (17 out of 37 studies), the change in egg size is generally less than 10%. Female mass and size rarely explain more than 20% of the variation in egg size within species. A female's egg size is not consistently related to other aspects of reproductive performance such as clutch size, laying date, or the pair's ability to rear young. Physiological characteristics of the female (e.g. endogenous protein stores, oviduct mass, rate of protein uptake by ovarian follicles) show more promise as potential determinants of egg size. With regards to the consequences of egg-size variation for offspring fitness, egg size is often correlated with offspring mass and size within the first week after hatching, but the evidence for more long-lasting effects on chick growth and survival is equivocal. In other oviparous vertebrates, the magnitude of egg-size variation within populations is often as great or greater than that observed within avian populations. Although there are much fewer estimates of the repeatability of egg size in other taxa, the available evidence suggests that egg size may be more flexible within individuals. Furthermore, in non-avian species (particularly fish and turtles), it is more common for female mass or size to explain a substantial proportion of the variation in egg size. Further research into the physiological basis of egg-size variation is needed to shed light on both the proximate and ultimate causes of intraspecific variation in this trait in birds.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.170
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.160 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations621
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical SocietySame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207