Does fluctuating selection maintain variation in nest defense behavior in Arctic peregrine falcons (<i>Falco peregrinus tundrius</i>)?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Behavioral expression can vary both within‐ (i.e., plasticity) and among‐individuals (i.e., animal personality), and understanding the causes and consequences of variation at each of these levels is a major area of investigation in contemporary behavioral ecology. Here, we studied sources of variation in both plasticity and personality in nest defense behavior in Arctic peregrine falcons ( Falco peregrinus tundrius ) in two consecutive years. We found that peregrines adjusted their nest defense in response to nesting stage and year, revealing plastic, state‐dependent, adjustment of nest defense. At the same time, nest defense behavior was repeatable in peregrine falcons both within and between years. We tested if fluctuating selection on behavioral types (i.e., individuals average phenotypic expression) and/or assortative mating acted to maintain long‐term among‐individual differences in nest defense behavior. We found that selection on female nest defense differed across years; being positive in 1 year and negative in the other. We also found support for assortative mating in the first year, but disassortative mating in the second. We propose two potential explanations for the observed year‐specific patterns of nonrandom mating: (1) year‐specific plastic adjustment of nest defense and/or (2) changes in the age‐structure of the breeding population. These posthoc explanations are speculative, and require further study. Unfortunately, we could not evaluate this directly with the available data, and future studies are needed with more than 2 years of data on nest‐defense and fitness outcomes, and with a larger number of marked individuals, to properly evaluate these potential explanations.
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) | 0.001 | 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".