Testing the niche differentiation hypothesis in wild capuchin monkeys with polymorphic color vision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The polymorphic color vision system present in most North, Central, and South American monkeys is a textbook case of balancing selection, yet the mechanism behind it remains poorly understood. Previous work has established task-specific foraging advantages to different color vision phenotypes: dichromats (red-green colorblind) are more efficient foraging for invertebrates, while trichromats (color “normal” relative to humans) are more efficient foraging for “reddish” ripe fruit, suggesting that niche differentiation may underlie the maintenance of color vision variation. We explore a prediction of the niche differentiation hypothesis by asking whether dichromatic and trichromatic capuchin monkeys (Cebus imitator) diverge in their foraging activity budget, specifically testing whether dichromats forage more frequently for invertebrates and trichromats forage more frequently for “reddish” ripe fruit. To assess this, we analyze a large data set of behavioral scan samples (n = 21 984) from 48 wild adult female capuchins of known color vision genotype, dominance rank, and reproductive status, together with models of food conspicuity. We find no significant differences between dichromats and trichromats in the frequency of scans spent foraging for different food types but do find that nursing females forage less overall than cycling females. Our results suggest that the potential for color-vision-based niche differentiation in foraging time may be curtailed by the energetic requirements of reproduction, behavioral synchrony caused by group living, and/or individual preferences. While niche differentiation in activity budgets by color vision type is not apparent, fine-scale niche differentiation may be occurring. This research enhances our understanding of the evolutionary processes maintaining sensory polymorphisms.
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 | 0.000 | 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".