Manipulating rearing conditions reveals developmental sensitivity in the smaller sex of a passerine bird, the European starling <i>Sturnus vulgaris</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally, studies of sexually size‐dimorphic birds and mammals report that the larger sex is more sensitive to adverse environmental conditions during ontogeny. However, recent studies in avian species that exhibit moderate size‐dimorphism indicate that the smaller sex may be more sensitive to poor rearing conditions. To better understand sex‐specific sensitivity in a passerine exhibiting moderate size‐dimorphism, we examined growth, cell‐mediated immunity (CMI) and survival of European starling Sturnus vulgaris nestlings following an experimental reduction of maternal rearing ability (via a feather‐clipping manipulation). Contrary to conventional theory, daughters showed reduced growth in both body mass and measures of structural size in response to the maternal treatment. In contrast, sons showed no reductions in any of these traits in relation to the treatment. No sex‐specific differences in nestling CMI were found for either group, although CMI of nestlings raised by manipulated mothers were higher than those of control nestlings. Finally, fledging sex ratios did not change from those at hatching indicating that neither sex appeared differentially sensitive to the maternal treatment in terms of mortality. These results reveal that variation in the quality of the rearing environment can have significant effects on the smaller sex of a passerine exhibiting moderate dimorphism and as such support recent studies of species with small‐moderate sexual size‐dimorphism. Combined results suggest that sex‐specific effects of environmental variation on nestling development may be both context‐ (i.e., brood size, resource level, hatching order) and temporally‐ (when during development they occur) specific. Furthermore, more studies are needed that examine multiple traits at several developmental stages and then follow the sexes over the longer‐term to examine potential effects on fitness.
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 | 0.003 | 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".