MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4223586423 · doi:10.1111/1365-2435.14055

Acceleration as a proxy for energy expenditure in a facultative‐soaring bird: Comparing dynamic body acceleration and time‐energy budgets to heart rate

2022· article· en· W4223586423 on OpenAlexfundno aff
J. Morgan Brown, Willem Bouten, C.J. Camphuysen, Bart A. Nolet, Judy Shamoun‐Baranes

Bibliographic record

VenueFunctional Ecology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekKoninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen
KeywordsEnergy expenditureAccelerometerEnergy budgetHeart rateBiologyProxy (statistics)EcologyMetabolic rateForagingSeabirdAllometryAccelerationCaptivityAtmospheric sciencesStatisticsMathematicsPredationComputer scienceEndocrinologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In animal ecology, energy expenditure is used for assessing the consequences of different behavioural strategies, life‐history events or environments. Animals can also influence energy expenditure through instantaneous behavioural responses to their external environment. It is therefore of interest to measure energy expenditure of free‐ranging animals across seasons and at high temporal resolutions. Heart rate has historically been used for this, but requires invasive surgery for long‐term use. Dynamic body acceleration (DBA) is an alternative proxy for energy expenditure that is simpler to deploy, yet few studies have examined how it performs over extended time periods, or for species using different locomotory modes, especially passive modes like soaring flight. We measured DBA alongside heart rate in free‐ranging lesser black‐backed gulls, a seabird that moves using flapping flight, soaring and walking, and rests on both land and water. Our objectives were to compare the relative changes in DBA and heart rate among and within behaviours and to examine how accelerometers can be used to estimate daily energy expenditure by comparing DBA to time‐energy budgets (TEBs). DBA and heart rate were sampled concurrently at 2.5‐ and 5‐min intervals throughout the breeding season, though measurements were not exactly synchronised. Behaviour was identified from accelerometer measurements, and DBA and heart rate were averaged over bouts of consistent behaviour. Heart rate was converted to metabolic rate using an allometric calibration, after confirming its fit using metabolic measurements taken in captivity and values from existing literature. Both proxies showed similar changes among behaviours, though DBA overestimated costs of floating, likely due to waves. However, relationships between DBA and heart rate were weak within a behaviour mode, possibly due to the lack of synchrony between proxy measurements. On daily scales, DBA and TEBs perform comparably for estimating daily energy expenditure. Accelerometery methods deviated from a 1:1 relationship with heart rate because acceleration could not measure variation in resting metabolic costs. We conclude DBA functions well for detecting energy expenditure arising from activity costs, including during soaring flight. We discuss scenarios where one method (DBA vs. TEBs) may be preferred over the other. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFunctional EcologySame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207