Plumage color and food availability affect male reproductive success in a socially monogamous bird
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Male reproductive success in socially monogamous birds is influenced to varying degrees by within-pair fertilization (WPF) and extrapair fertilization (EPF). In many species, males of higher phenotypic quality (e.g., plumage color) are more likely to obtain EPFs; however, predictors of WPF success have been less consistently identified. Moreover, few studies have examined the influence of ecological variables on patterns of paternity, even though environmental conditions are known to affect mating behavior of male and female birds. In this study, we examined phenotypic and ecological factors influencing patterns of paternity in broods of mountain bluebirds, Sialia currucoides. We show that brighter, bluer males were more likely to obtain EPFs in first broods but that plumage color did not predict the ability of males to maintain paternity in their own nest. We then examined the effect of food availability in first broods on the probability of males losing paternity in second broods within the same season. Females that were provided with supplemental food throughout first breeding attempts were less likely to produce extrapair offspring in second broods, and we suggest that supplemented females may have been less likely to seek extrapair mating opportunities because they perceived their social mates to be of higher quality under conditions of enhanced food availability. Our results demonstrate that ecological variables such as food availability can influence patterns of paternity and suggest that consideration of environmental context will be important for future research investigating mate choice and sexual selection in socially monogamous 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 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".