Red knots give up flight capacity and defend food processing capacity during winter starvation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1 During the last phase of starvation, animals depend mainly on protein breakdown. All organs are a potential protein source. Do starving animals prevent particular organs from being catabolized in order to defend certain functions? In this study we investigated if starving birds maintain locomotion and digestion capacities, both essential for the recovery process. 2 We compared body composition data of healthy wintering and winter-starved red knots (Calidris canutus islandica), a long-distance migrating shorebird that breeds on High Arctic tundra in Canada and Greenland, and winters in temperate coastal areas such as the Wadden Sea and the British estuaries. Throughout the wintering period they eat hard-shelled molluscs ingested whole. 3 Our results showed that winter-starved knots had catabolized 60·5% of their pectoral muscles. This was much more than the decrease in overall body mass (32·5%). As a result, their flight capacities will have been reduced. 4 Winter-starved knots defended the muscular gizzard, which lost only 21·2% of its mass. As knots crack the ingested shellfish with their gizzard, the organ is essential for food processing. The intestines and liver were not defended; their atrophy equalled that of the pectoral muscles (60·6% and 61·3%, respectively). 5 Comparison with data from the literature led to the conclusion that starving birds only defend organs that are essential to either obtain or process food. These organs are maintained at the minimal level of normal capacity. Other organs decrease below this level and may lose much of their functional capacity. 6 Even in near-death situations, with low fitness prospects, organisms show interpretably adaptive changes in organ size.
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) | 0.003 | 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".