Resting breathing frequency in aquatic birds: a comparative analysis with terrestrial species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Several studies have indicated that in birds breathing frequency ( f , breaths min −1 ) scales to the −1/3 of body weight ( W , kg); this is different from the −1/4 of mammals. We wondered if this discrepancy was due to the peculiar scaling pattern of aquatic birds, as is the case of aquatic mammals. In fact, we had noted previously that the allometric scaling of f differs considerably between aquatic and terrestrial mammals, respectively, W −0.42 and W −0.25 . Measurements of f were obtained in 48 aquatic birds of 22 species and in 35 terrestrial birds of 27 species, during resting conditions on land. Additional data from 11 aquatic and 14 terrestrial species, different from the ones measured, were obtained from the literature. The allometric curve of all species combined (terrestrial and aquatic, n =74) was f =13.3 W −0.36 , similar to what is reported in previous studies. However, the allometric curve of the aquatic species ( n =33, f =14.5 W −0.56 ) differed greatly ( P <0.001) from that of the terrestrial species ( n =41, f =13.4 W −0.26 ). On average, f of aquatic birds of the 3–5 kg range was 63%, and that of birds of larger size was 57%, of the values of terrestrial birds of similar W . We conclude that, as in mammals, also in terrestrial birds f scales to the −1/4 exponent of W . The similarity of the scaling patterns of f between aquatic birds and mammals suggests a common breathing adaptation to life in the aquatic environment irrespective of phylogenetic relations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".