Modeling optimal responses and fitness consequences in a changing Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animals must balance a series of costs and benefits while trying to maximize their fitness. For example, an individual may need to choose how much energy to allocate to reproduction versus growth, or how much time to spend on vigilance versus foraging. Their decisions depend on complex interactions between environmental conditions, behavioral plasticity, reproductive biology, and energetic demands. As animals respond to novel environmental conditions caused by climate change, the optimal decisions may shift. Stochastic dynamic programming provides a flexible modeling framework with which to explore these trade-offs, but this method has not yet been used to study possible changes in optimal trade-offs caused by climate change. We created a stochastic dynamic programming model capturing trade-off decisions required by an individual adult female polar bear (Ursus maritimus) as well as the fitness consequences of her decisions. We predicted optimal foraging decisions throughout her lifetime as well as the energetic thresholds below which it is optimal for her to abandon a reproductive attempt. To explore the effects of climate change, we shortened the spring feeding period by up to 3 weeks, which led to predictions of riskier foraging behavior and higher reproductive thresholds. The resulting changes in fitness may be interpreted as a best-case scenario, where bears adapt instantaneously and optimally to new environmental conditions. If the spring feeding period was reduced by 1 week, her expected fitness declined by 15%, and if reduced by 3 weeks, expected fitness declined by 68%. This demonstrates an effective way to explore a species' optimal response to a changing landscape of costs and benefits and highlights the fact that small annual effects can result in large cumulative changes in expected lifetime fitness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".