Pairing Decisions in the Harlequin Duck: Costs and Benefits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In waterfowl, the male costs and female benefits hypothesis considers that the timing of pairing will depend on the balance between the costs and benefits for each sex. Females may benefit by increasing their access to food and social status, and by decreasing harassment from conspecifics, while maintaining a pair bond for a long period should be costly to males. To investigate costs and benefits of early pairing in the Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus), we compared time budgets and frequency of interactions (agonistic, courtship, and mate guarding behavior) from paired and unpaired males and females. A total of 400 thirty-minute focal-animal sampling sessions were used for the analysis. Overall, feeding time did not differ between paired and unpaired birds of both sexes. However, regardless of their reproductive status, females spent about 15% more time feeding than males throughout the winter. While diving, paired males spent 4% less time underwater than unpaired males, but no difference was found between paired and unpaired females. Males spent more time on the surface between dives than females, yet the differences between paired and unpaired birds were not significant. Paired males were engaged in more interactions (mainly mate guarding) than unpaired males. Interactions received by paired and unpaired females did not differ overall, however, from late October to early May, interactions with paired females decreased, while interactions directed to unpaired females increased. Thus the pair bond, though being apparently costly to males, did not obviously benefit females by increasing feeding time. Early pairing in the Harlequin Duck may result from other factors, such as the advantages that pair reunion may confer.
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".