Color as an interspecific badge of status: a comparative test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animals as diverse as cephalopods, insects, fish, and mammals signal their social dominance to conspecifics to avoid costly fights. Even though between-species fights may be equally costly, the extent to which dominance signals are used between species is unknown. Here, we test the hypothesis that differences in color are associated with dominance between closely related species that aggressively interact over resources, examining between-species variation in colors that are used in within-species badges of status (black, white, and carotenoid coloration) in a comparative analysis of diverse species of birds. We found that dominant species have more black, on average, than subordinate species, particularly in regions important for aggressive signaling (face, throat, and bill). In addition, dominant species were more likely to have more black in comparisons in which the dominant species was not larger than the subordinate species, suggesting a greater importance of black as a signal when other signals of dominance (size) are missing. Carotenoid colors (i.e., red, pink, yellow, and orange) were not generally associated with dominance across all species but may signal dominance in some taxonomic groups. White appeared to have opposing functions in dominance signaling: white was associated with dominance in species in which black was also associated with dominance, but was associated with subordinance in species in which carotenoid-based dominance signals may be used. Overall, these results provide new evidence that colors may function broadly as signals of dominance among competing species. Such signals could help to mediate aggressive interactions among species, thereby reducing some costs of co-occurrence and facilitating coexistence in nature.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".