MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3028499874 · doi:10.1242/jeb.227082

Swallow mums push metabolic limits when they can keep cool

2020· article· en· W3028499874 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kathryn Knight

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommitEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parenting is not for the faint hearted. Dedicated tree swallow mums and dads commit themselves to 16 h of exertion each day, snapping up insects for their ravenous offspring. And they maintain this herculean effort for up to 22 days until their young are ready to leave the nest. It seems there are no limits to the lengths these parents will go. But Simon Tapper and Gary Burness from Trent University, Canada, with Joseph Nocera from the University of New Brunswick, Canada, weren't so sure. Tapper explains that the amount of energy a warm-blooded animal can invest in rearing its young – which is the most energetically demanding time of any animal's life – seems to be restricted by the amount of heat it can dispose of. However, most of the evidence supporting the idea is based on the experiences of new mouse mothers. Also, it wasn't clear how much of an effect lifestyle might have on an animal's ability to remain cool. Thinking about parent tree swallows, Tapper and colleagues wondered whether the industrious mothers might be able to labour even harder while raising their young if they were able to lose more heat through a bald patch in their feathers.Staking out nesting boxes in two nearby nature reserves, Tapper waited until clutches of tree swallow eggs hatched before briefly capturing the new mothers and gently snipping off the feathers covering the patch of warm skin that they use to incubate their eggs. He also inserted a minute tag into the necks of both parents to record when they returned to feed their demanding brood, in addition to keeping track of the weather conditions and monitoring the hatchlings as they grew.Initially, it looked as though the trimmed mothers weren't working any harder than females with an intact plumage; both visited their offspring roughly every 5.2 min. It was only when the team factored in the effect of the weather that the trimmed mums seemed to have an advantage. They were able to push themselves 25% harder than the untrimmed females on hot days, making an average of 43 more foraging trips per day to feed their young, although the trimmed mothers struggled to keep up with the untrimmed mothers’ feeding rate on chillier days. In addition, the trimmed mums were able to make ∼3 more visits per hour to their nests than the untrimmed females when feeding large broods of 7 nestlings. Most impressively, the offspring of the trimmed mums piled on the grams faster than the hatchlings of untrimmed mothers, weighing 1.82 g more when they departed, and they had better chances of survival after leaving the nest.It seems that the exertions of tree swallow mothers are restricted by the amount of heat that they can lose from their bodies, explaining why mothers that had had feathers removed were able to forage more on hot days than those with a full set of feathers that could overheat. However, the team suspects that the boosted growth of the trimmed mothers’ chicks could have more to do with the extra warmth available through their mother's bald patch. They are also concerned that rising temperatures caused by climate change could place chicks at greater risk, as their frenetic parents may be unable to meet their relentless demands as a consequence of heat exhaustion, making it harder for the chicks to grow swiftly to join their parents on the wing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Biology→Same topicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations→French-language works237,207→