MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226325998 · doi:10.1111/jav.02957

A tail of plumage colouration: disentangling geographic, seasonal and dietary effects on plumage colour in a migratory songbird

2022· article· en· W4226325998 on OpenAlexafffund
Sean M. Mahoney, Matthew W. Reudink, Andrea Contina, Kelly A. Roberts, Veronica T. Schabert, Emily G. Gunther, Kristen M. Covino

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Avian Biology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Geological SurveyLoyola Marymount University
KeywordsPlumageFeatherBiologySongbirdMoultingOrange (colour)ZoologyEcologySeasonal breeder

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plumage ornamentation in birds serves critical inter‐ and intra‐sexual signaling functions. While carotenoid‐based plumage colouration is often viewed as a classic condition‐dependent sexually selected trait, plumage colouration can be influenced by a wide array of both intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Understanding the mechanisms underlying variation in colouration is especially important for species where the signaling function of ornamental traits is complex or when the literature is conflicting. Here, we examined variation in the yellow/orange tail feathers of American redstarts Setophaga ruticilla passing through two migratory stopover sites in eastern North America during both spring and fall migration to assess the role of geographic variation and seasonality in influencing feather colouration. In addition, we investigated whether diet during moult (inferred via stable isotope analysis of feather δ 15 N and δ 13 C) influenced plumage colouration. Our findings indicate that geographic variation, season and diet all influence individual differences in American redstart colouration, represented by both traditional and tetrahedral colour variables. The extent to which these factors influence colour expression however is largely dependent on the colour metric under study, likely because different colour metrics reflect different attributes of the feather (e.g. structural components versus pigment deposition). The effects of diet (δ 15 N) and season were pronounced for brightness, suggesting a strong effect of diet and feather wear/degradation on feather structure. Though hue, a metric that should strongly reflect pigment deposition, also changed from spring to fall, that effect was dependent on age, with only adults experiencing a reduction in ornamentation. Taken together, our results highlight the numerous sources of variation behind plumage coloration and underscores the difficulty of unraveling complex visual signaling systems, such as those in American redstarts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.309
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Avian BiologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207