Male House Finches with Elaborate Songs have Higher Reproductive Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The elaborate songs of male animals are thought to function in either territory defense (male–male communication) or mate attraction (male–female communication). In non‐territorial animals, male vocalizations are expected to function primarily in mate attraction, yet the reproductive consequences of male vocalizations in non‐territorial animals are poorly described. Here we explore the relationship between male song and male reproductive performance in a free‐living population of house finches, Carpodacus mexicanus , a non‐migratory, non‐territorial songbird. Based on recordings of 20 males, we analyzed three song features (song length, number of unique syllables per song, and song rate) and compared male song with two measures of within‐pair reproductive performance (nest initiation date and clutch size) and one measure of extra‐pair reproductive performance (whether males sired extra‐pair young). We demonstrate a positive association between male song and within‐pair reproductive performance; males that sang long songs initiated their first clutch significantly earlier and males that sang songs at a faster rate had larger clutches. Despite the fact that only one of our recorded males sired extra‐pair young in the nest of another male, this male's songs were the most elaborate for two of three song features measured, anecdotally suggesting that male song may play a role in both within‐pair and extra‐pair partner choice. These results suggest that male song is a sexually selected trait in non‐territorial house finches.
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".