When Older Males Sire More Offspring—Increased Attractiveness or Higher Fertility?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: in Canada. We document that male fertilization success increased gradually up to a minimum age of four-year old. The age effect was especially strong for the number of extrapair offspring obtained and the occurrence of a second brood. The higher fertilization success of older males was also associated with an early start of breeding in spring. The length of the elongated outermost tail feathers, a postulated male ornament preferred by females, also increased with age (in both sexes), but it was not a significant predictor of male fertilization success within age classes. Male fertility traits, especially testis size, but also sperm motility and sperm velocity, increased significantly across age groups. Our results suggest that the higher fertilization success by older males is due to their higher reproductive investments and that their longer tails are an adaptation to early arrival on the breeding grounds. Significance statement: The barn swallow is a socially monogamous passerine with extensive extrapair mating. We found that males become more successful in siring both withinpair and extrapair offspring as they become older. Their increased fertilization success was associated with a higher reproductive effort as indicated by larger testes, more motile sperm, and an earlier start of breeding in spring. The length of the outer tail feathers increased with age in both sexes, but long tails did not enhance male fertilization success among males of the same age. Long tails are probably an adaptation to rapid migration and earlier arrival on the breeding grounds. Our findings suggest that the commonly observed age-related increase in male fertilization success in passerine birds is better explained by life history theory than by sexual selection theory. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00265-022-03170-0.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.006 | 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".