Individual and temporal variability in the courtship behavior of White-ruffed Manakins (<i>Corapipo altera</i>), a species with facultative cooperative displays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Investigation of the ecological and evolutionary basis for the often-intriguing courtship behavior of animals requires that we understand the patterns of variation inherent in such behaviors. The courtship displays of the White-ruffed Manakin (Corapipo altera) are not well-known, and previously published descriptions and interpretations of displays conflict with one another. We studied the reproductive behavior of C. altera during 6 breeding seasons, observing 72 display courts (mean 29 ± 2.5 courts annually) for a total of 2688 hr. We updated the behavioral characterization of C. altera by reconciling 8 previous ethologies and describing 2 new behavioral elements, vouchering all with audio and video recordings. We evaluated evidence for the occurrence of male–male cooperation and characterized the physical attributes and temporal dynamics of displays and display courts. We found strong evidence of cooperation among males; 32% of displays for females were highly coordinated displays performed by 2 males, and 8% of those ended in copulation. Males of the highest social status (alphas) retained that status for an average of 1.7 yr (range 1.5 mo to ≥5 yr). Most alphas remained at a single court during their alpha tenure and rarely declined in social status. Only 23% of second-ranked (beta) males transitioned to alpha status, and of those 70% became alphas at a new display court. Display courts did not seem to be limited because few measured physical attributes differed between active display logs and random logs. Several elements of C. altera display behavior and social organization were more variable than in other manakin species, including high turnover of the display courts. This work provides key information for comparative studies investigating the evolution of cooperation in Pipridae.
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 | 0.001 | 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".