Coordination in parental effort decreases with age in a long‐lived seabird
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biparental care is widespread in avian species. Individuals may match the contribution of their partner, resulting in equal parental effort, or may exploit their partner, to minimise their own investment. These two hypotheses have received much theoretical and empirical attention in short‐lived species, that change mates between seasons. However, in species with persistent pair bonds, where divorce is rare and costly, selective pressures are different, as partners share the value of future reproduction. In such species, coordination has been suggested to be adaptive and to increase early in life, as a consequence of the importance of mate familiarity. However, as birds age, an increase in re‐pairing probability occurs in parallel to a decline in their survival probability. At the point when partners no longer share future reproductive success, exploitation of a partner could become adaptive, reducing selection for coordinated effort. As such, we suggest that coordination in parental effort will decline with age in long‐lived species. Using incubation bout duration data, estimated from salt‐water immersion bio‐loggers, deployed on black‐browed albatrosses Thalassarche melanophris , we examined the correlation in incubation bout durations for sequential bouts, as a measure of coordination. Our results show that coordination is highest in inexperienced pairs (early in reproductive life) and declines throughout the lifetime of birds. This suggests that both cooperation, indicated by coordinated effort, and conflict over care occurs in this species. We find no change in individual bout duration with increasing breeding experience, and hence no support for the hypothesis that aging leads to changes in individual incubation behaviour. This is, to our knowledge, the first study to demonstrate strong coordination in parental care when pairs share future reproductive success, but a decline in coordination with age, as sexual conflict increases.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".