Breeding biology and social structure of White-winged Fairy-wrens (<i>Malurus leucopterus</i>): comparison between island and mainland subspecies having different plumage phenotypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
White-winged Fairy-wrens have a clan mating system wherein up to three cooperative breeding groups (breeding pair plus any helpers) are contained within the larger territory of a nuptial-plumaged male who also has a mate (likely with helpers). Nuptial-plumaged males of island and mainland subspecies have different plumage phenotypes: in the mainland Australian suspecies (Malurus leucopterus leuconotus) nuptial males are blue with white wings, whereas in the subspecies on Dirk Hartog (M. l. leucopterus) and Barrow (M. l. edouardi) Islands males are black with white wings. Here, we compare island and mainland populations of White-winged Fairy-wrens in morphology, breeding biology and social behaviour based on data collected over two breeding seasons on Dirk Hartog Island and near Lancelin, Western Australia, on the mainland. In addition to the colour differences of the nuptial males, mainland males and females were significantly larger than their counterparts on the island and mainland birds had significantly higher realised reproductive success. Pairs on Dirk Hartog Island had significantly smaller clutches, longer incubation periods, decreased hatching success, and fledged fewer offspring. Moreover, most mainland pairs had 1-4 helpers at their nests, whereas island pairs had few, if any, helpers at their nest. Thus island birds could be characterised as largely socially monogamous, whereas mainland birds were mainly cooperative breeders. We discuss morphological differences in relation to general island-mainland patterns of avian body size and relate island-mainland differences in reproductive success and social behaviour to research on parental care and sexual selection in other fairy-wren species.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".