MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2253451256 · doi:10.1111/jav.00740

Individual repeatability in laying behaviour does not support the migratory carry‐over effect hypothesis of egg‐size dimorphism in <i>Eudyptes penguins</i>

2015· article· en· W2253451256 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kyle W. Morrison

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Avian Biology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Business, Innovation and EmploymentFonds National de la Recherche LuxembourgNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaRoyal Society Te ApārangiRoyal Society
KeywordsBiologySexual dimorphismZoologyBroodEcologyAvian clutch sizeReproduction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Penguins of the genus Eudyptes are unique among birds in that their first‐laid A‐egg is 54–85% the mass of their second‐laid B‐egg. Although the degree of intra‐clutch egg‐size dimorphism varies greatly among the seven species of the genus, obligate brood reduction is typical of each, with most fledged chicks resulting from the larger B‐egg. Many authors have speculated upon why Eudyptes penguins have evolved and maintained a highly dimorphic 2‐egg clutch, and why it is the first‐laid egg that is so much smaller than the second, but only recently has a testable, proximate mechanism been proposed. In most species of Eudyptes penguins females appear to initiate egg‐formation at sea during return migration to breeding colonies. In macaroni penguins E. chrysolophus , females with a shorter pre‐laying interval ashore (and thus presumably greater overlap between migration and egg‐formation) lay more dimorphic eggs, suggesting a physiological conflict may constrain growth of the earlier‐initiated A‐egg. This migratory carry‐over effect hypothesis (MCEH) was tested in eastern rockhopper penguins E. chrysocome filholi on Campbell Island, New Zealand, by recording the arrival and lay dates, body sizes, and egg masses of transponder‐tagged females over two years. Females with longer pre‐laying intervals laid less dimorphic clutches, as predicted by the MCEH. However, repeated measures of individual females revealed that within‐individual variation in egg‐size dimorphism between years was unrelated to within‐individual variation in pre‐laying interval. Egg masses, and to a lesser extent egg‐size dimorphism, were highly repeatable traits related to body size and body mass. These results and a detailed consideration of the MCEH suggest that egg‐size dimorphism in Eudyptes penguins is unlikely to be caused by a migratory carry‐over effect.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.607

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.238 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Avian BiologySame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207