MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037742902 · doi:10.1111/jav.02440

Development of intraspecific size variation in black coucals, white‐browed coucals and ruffs from hatching to fledging

2020· article· en· W3037742902 on OpenAlexaff
Lina M. Giraldo‐Deck, Wolfgang Goymann, Ignas Safari, Deborah A. Dawson, Michael Stocks, Terry Burke, David B. Lank, Clemens Küpper

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Avian Biology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsSexual dimorphismBiologyFledgeSexual selectionHatchingIntraspecific competitionZoologyOntogenyEcologyNicheVariation (astronomy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most studies on sexual size dimorphism address proximate and functional questions related to adults, but sexual size dimorphism usually develops during ontogeny and developmental trajectories of sexual size dimorphism are poorly understood. We studied three bird species with variation in adult sexual size dimorphism: black coucals (females 69% heavier than males), white‐browed coucals (females 13% heavier than males) and ruffs (males 70% heavier than females). Using a flexible Bayesian generalized additive model framework (GAMM), we examined when and how sexual size dimorphism developed in body mass, tarsus length and bill length from hatching until fledging. In ruffs, we additionally examined the development of intrasexual size variation among three morphs (Independents, Satellites and Faeders), which creates another level of variation in adult size of males and females. We found that 27–100% of the adult inter‐ and intrasexual size variation developed until fledging although none of the species completed growth during the observational period. In general, the larger sex/morph grew more quickly and reached its maximal absolute growth rate later than the smaller sex/morph. However, when the daily increase in body mass was modelled as a proportion, growth patterns were synchronized between and within sexes. Growth broadly followed sigmoidal asymptotic models, however only with the flexible GAMM approach, residual distributions were homogeneous over the entire observation periods. These results provide a platform for future studies to relate variation in growth to selective pressures and proximate mechanisms in these three species, and they highlight the advantage of using a flexible model approach for examining growth variation during ontogeny.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations21
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Avian BiologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207