Preen gland microbiota of songbirds differ across populations but not sexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metabolites produced by symbiotic microbes can affect the odour of their hosts, providing olfactory cues of identity, sex or other salient features. In birds, preen oil is a major source of body odour that differs between populations and sexes. We hypothesized that population and sex differences in preen oil chemistry reflect underlying differences in preen gland microbiota, predicting that these microbes also differ among populations and between the sexes. We further predicted that pairwise similarity in the community composition of preen gland microbiota would covary with that of preen oil chemical composition, consistent with the fermentation hypothesis for chemical recognition. We analysed preen oil chemistry and preen gland bacterial communities of song sparrows Melospiza melodia. Birds were sampled at sites for which population and sex differences in preen oil have been reported, and at a third site that has been less studied. Consistent with prior work in this system, we found population and sex differences in preen oil chemistry. By contrast, we found population differences but not sex differences in the community composition of preen gland microbes. Overall similarity in the community composition of preen gland microbiota did not significantly covary with that of preen oil chemistry. However, we identified a subset of six microbial genera that maximally correlated with preen oil composition. Although both preen gland microbiota and preen oil composition differ across populations, we did not observe an overall association between them that would implicate symbiotic microbes in mediating variation in olfactory cues associated with preen oil. Instead, certain subsets of microbes may be involved in mediating olfactory cues in birds, but experiments are required to test this.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".