Individual variation and selection for phenotypic plasticity of laying date and clutch size across different environmental conditions in Tree swallow (<i>Tachycineta bicolor</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several studies have emphasized that phenotypic plasticity should be a key mechanism to cope with current rapid environmental changes by allowing individuals to quickly express new adaptive phenotypes. Yet, few studies have investigated the evolutionary potential of plasticity for multiple traits simultaneously and using several different environmental variables. Here, we assess the extent of variation in, and the selection acting on phenotypic plasticity of key ecological traits, laying date, and clutch size, using five environmental variables, in a Tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) population monitored since 2004. While we found some variation among females in their mean laying date and plasticity, we found evidence of selection acting only on mean laying date. We found no variation among females in mean clutch size or plasticity, such that we could not assess selection acting on either. Our results suggest that the evolutionary potential of plasticity in the population under study is limited, especially for clutch size. More studies investigating plasticity in wild populations and incorporating multiple traits and environmental variables are needed to understand the future responses of animal populations to environmental changes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".