MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

GENETIC PARENTAGE AND MATE GUARDING IN THE ARCTIC-BREEDING WESTERN SANDPIPER

2002· article· en· W2179034822 on OpenAlexaff
Donald Blomqvist, Bart Kempenaers, Richard B. Lanctot, Brett K. Sandercock

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Auk · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNational Park ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
KeywordsSandpiperCalidrisPaternal careBiologyMating systemNest (protein structural motif)ZoologyOffspringTundraArcticMatingEcologyPredationPregnancyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extrapair copulations and fertilizations are common among birds, especially in passerines. So far, however, few studies have examined genetic mating systems in socially monogamous shorebirds. Here, we examine parentage in the Western Sandpiper (Calidris mauri). Given that Western Sandpipers nest at high densities on the Arctic tundra, have separate nesting and feeding areas, and show high divorce rates between years, we expected extrapair paternity to be more common in this species compared to other monogamous shorebirds. However, DNA fingerprinting of 98 chicks from 40 families revealed that only 8% of broods contained young sired by extrapair males, and that 5% of all chicks were extrapair. All chicks were the genetic offspring of their social mothers. We found that males followed females more often than the reverse. Also, cuckolded males were separated from their mates for longer than those that did not lose paternity. Although these results suggest a role for male mate guarding, we propose that high potential costs in terms of reduced paternal care likely constrain female Western Sandpipers from seeking 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe AukSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207