ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2017
Conspicuous plumage colours are highly variable.
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- A lot of variation and asymmetry in the white patches of male capercaillie tails, but no association with mate choice.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Parrot politics: social decision-making in wild parrots relies on both individual recognition and intrinsic markers.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Claw coloration in the fiddler crabCurrent zoology · 2025Article
- Natural and sexual selection and functional roles influence colouration but not the amount of variation in butterfly wing colour patterns.BMC ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Influence of visual background on discrimination of signal-relevant colours in zebra finches (Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2022Article
- Discrete or indiscrete? Redefining the colour polymorphism of the land snail Cepaea nemoralis.Heredity · 2019Article
- Male Red-crested Cardinal plumage coloration is associated with parental abilities and breeding performance.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Sexual selection, phenotypic plasticity and female reproductive output.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Elaborate ornamental traits are often under directional selection for greater elaboration, which in theory should deplete underlying genetic variation. Despite this, many ornamental traits appear to remain highly variable and how this essential variation is maintained is a key question in evolutionary biology. One way to address this question is to compare differences in intraspecific variability across different types of traits to determine whether high levels of variation are associated with specific trait characteristics. Here we assess intraspecific variation in more than 100 plumage colours across 55 bird species to test whether colour variability is linked to their level of elaboration (indicated by degree of sexual dichromatism and conspicuousness) or their condition dependence (indicated by mechanism of colour production). Conspicuous colours had the highest levels of variation and conspicuousness was the strongest predictor of variability, with high explanatory power. After accounting for this, there were no significant effects of sexual dichromatism or mechanisms of colour production. Conspicuous colours may entail higher production costs or may be more sensitive to disruptions during production. Alternatively, high variability could also be related to increased perceptual difficulties inherent to discriminating highly elaborate colours. Such psychophysical effects may constrain the exaggeration of animal colours.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.