Unexpected diversity in socially synchronized rhythms of shorebirds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The behavioural rhythms of organisms are thought to be under strong selection, influenced by the rhythmicity of the environment 1–4 . Such behavioural rhythms are well studied in isolated individuals under laboratory conditions 1,5 , but free-living individuals have to temporally synchronize their activities with those of others, including potential mates, competitors, prey and predators 6–10 . Individuals can temporally segregate their daily activities (e.g. prey avoiding predators, subordinates avoiding dominants) or synchronize their activities (e.g. group foraging, communal defence, pairs reproducing or caring for offspring) 6–9,11 . The behavioural rhythms that emerge from such social synchronization and the underlying evolutionary and ecological drivers that shape them remain poorly understood 5–7,9 . Here, we address this in the context of biparental care, a particularly sensitive phase of social synchronization 12 where pair members potentially compromise their individual rhythms. Using data from 729 nests of 91 populations of 32 biparentally-incubating shorebird species, where parents synchronize to achieve continuous coverage of developing eggs, we report remarkable within– and between-species diversity in incubation rhythms. Between species, the median length of one parent’s incubation bout varied from 1 – 19 hours, while period length–the time in which a parent’s probability to incubate cycles once between its highest and lowest value – varied from 6 – 43 hours. The length of incubation bouts was unrelated to variables reflecting energetic demands, but species relying on crypsis (the ability to avoid detection by other animals) had longer incubation bouts than those that are readily visible or actively protect their nest against predators. Rhythms entrainable to the 24-h light-dark cycle were less prevalent at high latitudes and absent in 18 species. Our results indicate that even under similar environmental conditions and despite 24-h environmental cues, social synchronization can generate far more diverse behavioural rhythms than expected from studies of individuals in captivity 5–7,9 . The risk of predation, not the risk of starvation, may be a key factor underlying the diversity in these rhythms.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".