Cross-seasonal dynamics in body mass of male Harlequin Ducks: a strategy for meeting costs of reproduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considerations of acquisition of energy for reproduction by waterfowl have disproportionately focused on females, although males also require energy for reproduction. We quantified variation in body mass of male Harlequin Ducks ( Histrionicus histrionicus (L., 1758)) on coastal wintering areas prior to spring migration, as well as on breeding grounds, to determine when and where nutrients were acquired to meet costs of reproduction. Male mass on wintering grounds increased, on average, by 45 g (7%) in the weeks prior to migration. On breeding streams, we inferred that body mass of paired males decreased with the length of time on breeding grounds. Also, on average, male mass was considerably lower on breeding streams than when they departed coastal wintering sites. We conclude that males store nutrients on marine wintering grounds for subsequent use during the breeding season. Male Harlequin Ducks are highly vigilant while on breeding streams and the associated reduction in feeding time presumably requires energy stores. We suggest that males have evolved a strategy that is at least partially “capital” for meeting costs of reproduction, in which they acquire an optimal amount of energy reserves prior to spring migration and subsequently invest them in behaviours that can enhance reproductive success.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".