The Oxidative Cost of Acoustic Signals: Examining Steroid Versus Aerobic Activity Hypotheses in a Wild Bird
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Vertebrate vocalizations are widespread secondary sexual signals used for mate attraction and territory defence, and variation in signal quality is often condition dependent and impacts reproductive outcomes. Although vocal signal performance is known to reflect various aspects of male quality, few studies have examined the underlying mechanisms mediating its costs and hence its honesty. Using a population of Arctic‐breeding snow buntings ( Plectrophenax nivalis ), we compared the ‘ Oxidation Handicap Hypothesis ’, which predicts that testosterone‐induced increases in oxidative stress provide a direct mechanistic basis for ensuring the honesty of many secondary sexual signals, to the ‘ Aerobic Activity Hypothesis , which predicts that it is the aerobic activity involved with signal production (i.e. vocal performance or defending a large territory) and not testosterone directly that links signal quality and oxidative stress. Males singing at faster rates had higher levels of both reactive oxygen metabolites and non‐enzymatic antioxidant capacity in the plasma (i.e. without an increase in overall oxidative stress), enabling certain males to produce high‐quality signals while also mitigating the costs of an associated increase in oxidative stress. However, these results were completely independent of plasma testosterone levels, supporting the role of aerobic performance in directly affecting oxidative stress. Although song performance was not linked to reproductive parameters in our data set, our research is the first to test these competing hypotheses in a behavioural trait and results suggest that oxidative stress may be an underlying physiological cost preventing low‐quality individuals from producing high‐quality signals.
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".