Experimental test of selection against hybridization as a driver of avian signal divergence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Signal divergence may be pivotal in the generation and maintenance of new biodiversity by allowing closely related species to avoid some costs of co-occurrence. In birds, closely related, sympatric species are more divergent in their colour patterns than those that live apart, but the selective pressures driving this pattern remain unclear. Traditionally, signal divergence among sympatric species is thought to result from selection against hybridization, but broad evidence is lacking. Here, we conducted field experiments on naïve birds using spectrometer-matched, painted 3D-printed models to test whether selection against hybridization drives colour pattern divergence in the genus Poecile. To address selection for male colour pattern divergence without the influence of learning or the evolution of female discrimination in sympatry, we simulated secondary contact between Poecile species, and conducted mate choice experiments on naïve, allopatric females. We found that female black-capped chickadees (Poecile atricapillus) are equally likely to perform copulation solicitation displays to sympatric and allopatric heterospecific congeners when they are paired with conspecifics, but exhibit a strong preference for less divergent males when presented with paired heterospecific congeners. These results suggest that increased colour pattern divergence among sympatric species can reduce the likelihood of mixed mating in some contexts, and therefore should be favoured by selection against hybridization.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".