Patterns of extra‐pair paternity in mountain chickadees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Extra‐pair paternity (EPP) is common in chickadees and often attributed to the good genes hypothesis. Females generally seek dominant males, who are typically larger, older and sing at higher rates than subordinate males, as extra‐pair sires. In other songbird species, habitat quality and urbanization have been found to influence EPP. Mountain chickadees commonly inhabit suburban habitat, and previous research on our population has shown urbanization may provide benefits to these adaptable songbirds. Here, we ask how individual condition and urbanization influence rates of EPP in mountain chickadees. Over three breeding seasons, we monitored mountain chickadee nests in urban and rural habitat, and determined parentage by genotyping adults and nestlings at six microsatellite loci. Extra‐pair paternity is common in mountain chickadees, with extra‐pair offspring (EPO) in 43.2% of nests and accounting for 17.9% of offspring. We found tenuous support for the good genes hypothesis with females tending to engage in EPCs with older males. However, we did not find an influence of male or female condition on the proportion of EPO in a nest. In addition, we did not find a significant effect of habitat on EPP rates, suggesting the impacts of urbanization on mountain chickadee reproduction may not extend to altering extra‐pair behaviour.
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) | 0.002 | 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".