Assessing costs of carrying geolocators using feather corticosterone in two species of aerial insectivore
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite benefits of using light-sensitive geolocators to track animal movements and describe patterns of migratory connectivity, concerns have been raised about negative effects of these devices, particularly in small species of aerial insectivore. Geolocators may act as handicaps that increase energetic expenditure, which could explain reported effects of geolocators on survival. We tested this 'Energetic Expenditure Hypothesis' in 12 populations of tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) and barn swallows (Hirundo rustica) from North America and Europe, using measurements of corticosterone from feathers (CORTf) grown after deployment of geolocators as a measure of physiology relevant to energetics. Contrary to predictions, neither among- (both species) nor within-individual (tree swallows only) levels of CORTf differed with respect to instrumentation. Thus, to the extent that CORTf reflects energetic expenditure, geolocators apparently were not a strong handicap for birds that returned post-deployment. While this physiological evidence suggests that information about migration obtained from returning geolocator-equipped swallows is unbiased with regard to levels of stress, we cannot discount the possibility that corticosterone played a role in reported effects of geolocators on survival in birds, and suggest that future studies relate corticosterone to antecedent factors, such as reproductive history, and to downstream fitness costs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".