MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Size‐Related Advantages for Reproduction in a Slightly Dimorphic Raptor: Opposite Trends between the Sexes

2007· article· en· W2120456952 on OpenAlexaff
Fabrizio Sergio, Julio Blas, Manuela G. Forero, José A. Donázar, Fernando Hiraldo

Bibliographic record

VenueEthology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexual dimorphismBiologySexual selectionTraitReproductionPopulationZoologyEcologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Despite many comparative analyses and more than 20 proposed hypotheses, there is still little consensus over the factors promoting the evolution of reversed sexual dimorphism (RSD) in raptorial species. Furthermore, intrapopulation studies, which may elucidate how RSD is maintained once evolved, have been surprisingly scarce and only focused on a handful of species with medium to high dimorphism. We examined the reproductive advantages associated with body size and condition, measured in the pre‐laying period, in a diurnal raptor with low sexual dimorphism, the black kite ( Milvus migrans ). The study population was essentially monomorphic in size. For females, there was an evidence of reproductive benefits associated with larger size and/or with better body condition. Larger females had also access to higher quality partners and territories, consistent with the ‘intrasexual selection’ hypothesis, by which members of the larger sex enjoy size‐related advantages in intrasexual competition over a scarce resource, the smaller sex. Opposite trends emerged for males: smaller, leaner males had higher breeding output, consistent with the ‘small efficient male’ hypothesis. Overall, the fact that we observed in an essentially monomorphic population the same selection pressures previously found in species with marked dimorphism suggests that such reproductive advantages may be counterbalanced in our study model by opposite selection pressures during other stages of the life cycle. This casts some doubts on the evolutionary significance of studies focusing exclusively on reproduction and calls for the need of more comprehensive analyses incorporating trait‐mediated differentials in survival and recruitment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations28
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207