Egg colouration in mountain bluebirds (Sialia currucoides): A sexually selected indicator of female quality?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An adaptive explanation for the blue-green colouration of some avian eggshells has long interested researchers and naturalists alike. Unlike brown and maculated eggs that probably evolved through selection for crypsis, blue-green eggs would likely appear conspicuous to predators. It has been proposed that blue green egg colouration may be a sexually selected indicator of female quality. Because the pigment responsible for blue egg colouration is also an antioxidant, egg colour may act as a post-mating signal to the male of the laying female’s quality. Males may thus use egg colour to assess the female’s quality, and therefore, the quality of her offspring, investing more heavily in clutches of better quality females. The mountain bluebird (Sialia currucoides) is a socially monogamous species with biparental care, which lays blue eggs, making it an excellent species to test the sexual selection hypothesis for the evolution of blue egg colouration. Using digital photography, I examined the blue colouration of mountain bluebird eggs to investigate evidence for blue egg colouration acting as a sexually selected signal in mountain bluebirds. There were no consistent relationships between egg colouration and other variables, including parental provisioning rates, female condition, or offspring survival and growth rates. I conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support the notion that mountain bluebirds are using egg colouration as a sexually selected signal. However, variation in egg blue coloration was related to female provisioning rates, suggesting there may be a link between female quality and egg colouration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 teacher head, 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".