Physiological and biochemical correlates of brood size and energy expenditure in tree swallows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intra-population variation in many fitness-related traits (e.g. clutch size) is often attributed to variation in individual parental quality. One possible component of quality is the level at which each individual can expend energy while provisioning dependent young. We used breeding tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) to test whether adults with large, natural-sized broods and/or nestlings in good nutritional condition had relatively high daily energy expenditures (DEEs). Adults with high DEEs were predicted to have large internal organs and high metabolic capacities. We first measured the growth rate of nestlings in natural broods of five, six and seven over a 4-day period and then measured parental DEE using doubly labelled water. Adults were then dissected for analyses of body composition and to determine maximum enzyme activities in the pectoral muscle. Although the total mass gain of large broods was greater than that of small broods, parental DEE was independent of brood size. We hypothesize that adults matched their clutch size (and consequently, brood size) to their individual foraging efficiencies. When statistically controlling for the effects of brood size, in one of two years there was a positive correlation between DEE and brood mass. This suggests that among individuals rearing the same-sized broods there were reproductive benefits of a relatively high DEE. There was no correlation between either brood size or DEE and the mass of any internal organ or the metabolic capacity of the pectoral muscle.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".