Interactions between rate processes with different timescales explain counterintuitive foraging patterns of arctic wintering eiders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To maximize fitness, animals must respond to a variety of processes that operate at different rates or timescales. Appropriate decisions could therefore involve complex interactions among these processes. For example, eiders wintering in the arctic sea ice must consider locomotion and physiology of diving for benthic invertebrates, digestive processing rate and a nonlinear decrease in profitability of diving as currents increase over the tidal cycle. Using a multi-scale dynamic modelling approach and continuous field observations of individuals, we demonstrate that the strategy that maximizes long-term energy gain involves resting during the most profitable foraging period (slack currents). These counterintuitive foraging patterns are an adaptive trade-off between multiple overlapping rate processes and cannot be explained by classical rate-maximizing optimization theory, which only considers a single timescale and predicts a constant rate of foraging. By reducing foraging and instead digesting during slack currents, eiders structure their activity in order to maximize long-term energetic gain over an entire tide cycle. This study reveals how counterintuitive patterns and a complex functional response can result from a simple trade-off among several overlapping rate processes, emphasizing the necessity of a multi-scale approach for understanding adaptive routines in the wild and evaluating mechanisms in ecological time series.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".