Sex-specific energy management strategies in response to training for increased foraging effort prior to reproduction in captive zebra finches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Free-living animals often engage in behaviour that involves high rates of workload and results in high daily energy expenditure (DEE), such as reproduction. However, the evidence for elevated DEE accompanying reproduction remains equivocal. In fact, many studies have found no difference in DEE between reproducing and non-reproducing females. One of the hypotheses explaining the lack of difference is the concept of an 'energetic ceiling'. However, it is unclear whether the lack of increase in energy expenditure is due to the existence of an energetic ceiling and/or compensation by males during parental care. To investigate whether an energetic ceiling exists, we experimentally manipulated foraging effort in captive zebra finches, Taeniopygia guttata, creating two groups with high and low foraging efforts followed by both groups breeding in the low foraging effort common garden condition. DEE was measured in both sexes throughout the experiment. We show sex-specific energy management strategies in response to training for increased foraging effort prior to reproduction. Specifically, males and females responded differently to the high foraging effort treatment and subsequently to chick rearing in terms of energy expenditure. Our results also suggest that there is an energetic ceiling in females and that energetic costs incurred prior to reproduction can be carried over into subsequent stages of reproduction in a sex-specific manner.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".