Interspecific dominance relationships and hybridization between black-capped and mountain chickadees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Black-capped chickadees (Poecile atricapillus) and mountain chickadees (P. gambeli) are ecologically segregated due to differences in habitat preference. However, forestry practices in northwestern Canada have created a mosaic of coniferous (mountain chickadee habitat) and deciduous forest patches (black-capped habitat), which might explain cases of observed regional sympatry between these 2 closely related species. In Poecile species, social hierarchies amongst conspecific individuals influence life-history parameters such as mate choice. As a result, interspecific social hierarchies might drive hybridization between these 2 closely related species. By conducting field observations and aviary experiments, we demonstrated that black-capped chickadees are dominant over mountain chickadees. Using a combination of species-specific phenotypes (plumage), mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) to assess maternal genotype, and microsatellite markers, we confirmed that genetic mixing occurs within our contact zone but that the pattern of parentage appears directional. All but one of the adult hybrids was phenotypically identified as mountain chickadee and had mountain chickadee mtDNA. Furthermore, all nestlings where microsatellites detected mixed-species ancestry were from mountain chickadee nests with both attending parents having mountain chickadee phenotypes. All mtDNA from these nestlings was mountain chickadee except for one individual, and in all cases, these nestlings showed genetic patterns of having arisen through extrapair copulations between female mountain and male black-capped chickadees. Our results suggest that hybridization may result from males of the mountain chickadees having lower expression of a preferred trait (dominance) than the black-capped chickadees.
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".