REPRODUCTIVE ANATOMY AND INDICES OF QUALITY IN MALE TREE SWALLOWS: THE POTENTIAL REPRODUCTIVE ROLE OF FLOATERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Avian populations often consist of breeding residents and nonbreeding floaters. It is usually assumed that floaters are lower-quality individuals that do not reproduce, but floater tactics and potential reproductive success have rarely been examined carefully. To assess the potential reproductive role of male floaters in Tree Swallows (Tachycineta bicolor), we compared their reproductive organs and morphology with those of resident males. Tree Swallows show high levels of extrapair paternity, but two studies attempting to find the fathers of the extrapair offspring have been remarkably unsuccessful. Floater males that father extrapair young would face intense sperm competition. Theory predicts that under intense sperm competition, selection favors males that produce more sperm. Comparative studies in birds and other taxa provide evidence that the level of sperm competition influences relative testes size and sperm production. However, intraspecific adaptations to different levels of sperm competition have received far less attention. Floater Tree Swallows did not differ from resident males in any of the characters we measured, including testes size, but floaters had significantly larger cloacal protuberances. Thus, our results do not confirm the general assumption that floaters are lower-quality individuals that do not reproduce. Furthermore, floaters showed high variation in the volume of the cloacal protuberance (reflecting sperm numbers), which suggests that they engage in copulations. We conclude that floater male Tree Swallows invest heavily in sperm production (as do resident males) to exploit breeding opportunities through takeovers or extrapair copulations.
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 | 0.001 | 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".