No short-term physiological costs of offspring care in a cooperatively breeding bird
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cost of reproduction results in a life-history trade-off where investment in current reproduction via costly parental care decreases subsequent fitness. Although this trade-off is thought to occur ubiquitously across animals, there is equivocal evidence that parental care behaviours are costly. A major challenge of studying the cost of parental care has been a lack of consensus over which physiological mechanisms underlie this trade-off. Here we compare four traits believed to mediate the cost of parental care by examining whether glucocorticoids, oxidative stress, immune function, or body condition represent a cost of performing offspring care and shape subsequent fitness. We use a 4-year dataset collected in free-living cooperatively breeding superb starlings (Lamprotornis superbus), a species in which parental and alloparental care effort varies widely among individuals and across years. Our results showed that within-individual change in physiology was unrelated to investment in offspring care, and physiological state during chick-rearing did not predict the likelihood that an individual would breeding in subsequent seasons. Instead, individuals that had elevated baseline corticosterone during incubation performed more nest guarding, suggesting that this hormone may play a preparatory role for investing in offspring care. Together, our results indicate that superb starlings modify their investment in offspring care according to their physiological state during incubation, despite no evidence of a short-term physiological cost of parental or alloparental care. Thus, breeding cooperatively appears to provide individuals with the flexibility to adjust their investment in offspring care and overcome any potential costs of reproduction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".