Extra-pair paternity in a long-distance migratory songbird beyond neighbors’ borders and across male age classes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Roughly 90% of socially monogamous bird species exhibit some degree of extra-pair paternity (EPP), although the extent and the underlying mechanisms vary among species. We analyzed spatial and demographic patterns of EPP over a 6 year period (2005–2010) as part of a long-term population study of Canada Warblers (Cardellina canadensis (L., 1766)). We identified 12 microsatellite loci used to assess paternity for 185 nestlings from 61 nests. Extra-pair young (EPY) accounted for 41.6% of all nestlings and 57.4% of nests contained at least one EPY. Fewer than half of EPY were sired by males who shared territorial boundaries, and some males sired young in nests 1 km from their territory. The age of social males did not differ from males who cuckolded them. The majority (83%) of EPY were sired by males in older age classes (2+ years old), while <17% were sired by 1 year olds. Of the young sired by older males, 58.5% were sired by males 3–7 years old. Males that sired more EPY sired fewer within-pair young (WPY); those without EPY sired more WPY suggesting a possible fitness trade-off between these two strategies. Our findings suggest multiple age-based strategies within a single breeding population, as well as potential strategy shifts to maximize lifetime fitness as they age.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".