Banding data show hummingbirds have high rates of hybridization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We estimate hybridization rates among hummingbirds using nearly a million banding records from the United States and Canada. Annually from 2006 to 2019, an average of 44,600 individual hummingbirds and 14 hybrids were banded. Nearly all reports of hybrids come from localities west of the Mississippi, where multiple species breed in sympatry, whereas only Ruby-throated Hummingbird (Archilochus colubris) breeds east of the Mississippi. Adult male hybrids comprise 62% of all hybrids banded, a significantly greater fraction than “regular” adult males, which are 29% of all birds banded (excluding Ruby-throated Hummingbird). We infer that this excess of adult male hybrids is caused by ascertainment bias: banders more often misidentify female hybrids as parental species because females mostly lack species-specific showy sexual ornaments of male hummingbirds, making them harder to identify, rather than Haldane’s rule of reduced survivorship of the heterogametic sex. Also influencing the apparent hybridization rate are banders, a few of whom seek out or avoid hybrids. After considering these biases, the data suggest that, in areas of the United States and Canada with >1 species, approximately 1 hummingbird in a thousand (0.1%) is an F1 hybrid.
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) | 0.004 | 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".