Social and Genetic Mating System of the American Golden-Plover
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shorebirds are exceptionally diverse in their social mating systems, and genetic analyses of a few species have revealed further variation in genetic mating systems. The ecological and evolutionary causes of this variation are largely unknown. We studied the mating system of American Golden-Plovers (Pluvialis dominica) at Barrow, Alaska, between 2004 and 2009. In this arctic population, birds bred in socially monogamous pairs, as has been seen in other populations, yet rates of philopatry and mate fidelity were low. We used microsatellite DNA markers to analyze parentage and found that most offspring originated from monogamous matings, but 8% of 131 offspring and 16% of 37 nests were the result of nonmonogamous matings. One nest was ambiguous; it was either a full clutch sired through extra-pair copulation or represented an instance of social polygyny. Despite wide variation in synchrony of breeding and density of nesting both within and among breeding seasons, these ecological variables were unrelated to mating patterns. We speculate that the low rate of pair fidelity and the high rate of extrapair paternity are linked, because the lack of familiarity between partners reduces benefits of monogamy. Further study of breeding behavior and rates of philopatry are needed to understand why, among socially monogamous shorebirds, the American Golden-Plover has high rates of extra-pair paternity.
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".