Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorVaquero-Alba, I
dc.contributor.authorMcGowan, A
dc.contributor.authorPincheira-Donoso, D
dc.contributor.authorEvans, MR
dc.contributor.authorDall, SRX
dc.date.accessioned2016-05-27T13:49:12Z
dc.date.issued2016-04-06
dc.description.abstractAn important driver of the evolution of animal coloration is sexual selection operating on traits that are used to transmit information to rivals and potential mates, which has a major impact on fitness. Reflectance spectrometry has become a standard color-measuring tool, especially after the discovery of tetrachromacy in birds and their ability to detect UV light. Birds' plumage patterns may be invisible to humans, and therefore the establishment of reliable and quantitatively objective ways of assessing coloration not dependent on human vision is a technical need of primary importance. Plumage coloration measurements can be taken directly on live birds in the field, or in the laboratory (e.g., on collected feathers). However, which of these 2 approaches offers a more reliable, repeatable sampling method remains an unsolved question. Using a spectrophotometer, we measured melanin-based coloration in the plumage of Barn Swallows (Hirundo rustica). We assessed the repeatability of measures obtained with both traditional sampling methods to quantitatively determine their reliability. We used an ANOVA-based method for calculating the repeatability of measurements from 2 years separately, and a GLMM-based method to calculate overall adjusted repeatabilities for both years. The results of our study indicate a great disparity between color measurements obtained using both sampling methods and a low comparability across them. Assuming that measurements taken in the field reflect the real or “true” color of plumage, we may conclude that there is a lack of reliability of the laboratory method to reflect this true color in melanin-based plumages. Likewise, we recommend the use of the GLMM-based statistical method for repeatability calculations, as it allows the inclusion of random factors and the calculation of more realistic, adjusted repeatabilities. It also reduces the number of necessary tests, thereby increasing power, and it allows easy calculation of 95% CIs, a measure of the reliability and precision of effect-size calculations.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipI.V.-A. was sponsored by a PhD studentship from the Programa de Formacion de Personal ´ Investigador, Departamento de Educacion, Universidades e Investigacion, Gobierno Vasco, Spain. The funder did not have any input into the content of the manuscript, nor require approval of the manuscript before submission or publicationen_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 133 (3), pp. 325-337en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1642/AUK-16-19.1
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/21737
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherCentral Ornithology Publication Officeen_GB
dc.subjectadjusted repeatabilityen_GB
dc.subjectbird plumageen_GB
dc.subjectcolorful displaysen_GB
dc.subjectsexual selectionen_GB
dc.subjectspectrophotometryen_GB
dc.subjecttetrachromacyen_GB
dc.subjectultravioleten_GB
dc.titleA quantitative analysis of objective feather color assessment: measurements in the lab do not reflect true plumage coloren_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2016-05-27T13:49:12Z
dc.identifier.issn1938-4254
dc.descriptionThis is the final version of the article. Available from Central Ornithology Publication Office via the DOI in this record.en_GB
dc.identifier.journalAuk: a quarterly journal of ornithologyen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record