GLOBAL PATTERNS OF PLUMAGE COLOUR EVOLUTION IN ISLAND-LIVING PASSERIFORM BIRDS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Plumage coloration is an important trait involved communication and is shaped by a variety of ecological pressures. Island residency has the potential to change the evolutionary trajectory of plumage colour by differences in habitat and resources, or by altering predation pressure and social selection intensity. Latitude, island size, and isolation may further influence colour evolution by biasing colonization. Therefore, general patterns of plumage evolution are difficult to disentangle. We used phylogenetically controlled analyses to assess the influence of island residency on plumage colouration, by calculating chromaticity values from red, blue, green scores extracted from photos of Order Passeriformes birds. Importantly, we controlled for ecological factors hypothesized to influence colour evolution and assessed family-level effects. We found 1) colour varied between islands and mainlands in females, but not males, and both sexes were affected by several ecological factors; 2) patterns of colour evolution varied among families; 3) island size and distance to the mainland and other islands significantly influenced colour; and 4) interactions between ecological factors and latitude were consistently influenced colour, supporting a latitudinal gradient hypothesis. Our results indicate although island residency influences female colour evolution, a myriad of ecological factors drive plumage colour and the patterns vary among families.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".