The relationship between female brooding and male nestling provisioning: does climate underlie geographic variation in sex roles?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparative studies of populations occupying different environments can provide insights into the ecological conditions affecting differences in parental strategies, including the relative contributions of males and females. Male and female parental strategies reflect the interplay between ecological conditions, the contributions of the social mate, and the needs of offspring. Climate is expected to underlie geographic variation in incubation and brooding behavior, and can thereby affect both the absolute and relative contributions of each sex to other aspects of parental care such as offspring provisioning. However, geographic variation in brooding behavior has received much less attention than variation in incubation attentiveness or provisioning rates. We compared parental behavior during the nestling period in populations of orange‐crowned warblers Oreothlypis celata near the northern (64°N) and southern (33°N) boundaries of the breeding range. In Alaska, we found that males were responsible for the majority of food delivery whereas the sexes contributed equally to provisioning in California. Higher male provisioning in Alaska appeared to facilitate a higher proportion of time females spent brooding the nestlings. Surprisingly, differences in brooding between populations could not be explained by variation in ambient temperature, which was similar between populations during the nestling period. While these results represent a single population contrast, they suggest additional hypotheses for the ecological correlates and evolutionary drivers of geographic variation in brooding behavior, and the factors that shape the contributions of each sex.
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".