Seasonal and Diurnal Body-Mass Fluctuations for two Nonhoarding Species of Parus in Sweden Modeled Using Path Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract According to the hypothesis that has been invoked most frequently to explain seasonal fattening patterns for birds—the “adaptive winter-fattening hypothesis”—individuals respond to worsening foraging conditions by increasing body mass and energy reserves. Two hypotheses have been proposed equally frequently to explain daily weight gain patterns for birds: according to the “state-dependent foraging hypothesis,” energy reserves should be amassed early during the day, when starvation risk increases; according to the “mass-dependent predation-risk hypothesis,” mass gain should be delayed for as long as possible, to minimize predation risk. Those hypotheses have been tested previously, using statistical methods (e.g. multiple-regression analysis) that assume independence among environmental variables (e.g. photoperiod and temperature). We conducted path analyses that included four predictor variables (day-in-season, hour-in-day, mean daily temperature, and daily precipitation) to model body-mass fluctuations for two small, nonhoarding (noncaching) passerine species that inhabit central eastern Sweden. Data were partitioned hierarchically into species, age class, gender, and season subgroups. As reported in many small passerine species studies, body mass increased during the day and maximized at dusk; over seasons, body mass increased during autumn, maximized by midwinter, and declined toward breeding in spring. Path analysis models accounted for 9.5–49.9% (mean 26.3%) for Blue Tit (Parus caeruleus) body mass variance and 1.8–52.3% (mean 16.8%) for Great Tit (P. major) body mass variance; for both species, accountability was lowest for autumn (Blue Tit,12.2%; Great Tit, 7.3%), highest for winter (Blue Tit, 33.4%; Great Tit, 21.9%), and intermediate for spring (Blue Tit, 22.7%; Great Tit, 11.8%); for Blue Tits, it was greater for adults than for juveniles (33.2 and 21.7%); whereas negligible for Great Tits (15.9 and 17.3%) and slightly greater for males than for females (Blue Tit, 27.4 and 23.5%; Great Tit, 23.1 and 21.3%). Those results are consistent with predictions formulated on the basis of the adaptive winter-fattening, partially with state-dependent foraging, and, possibly, mass-dependent predation-risk hypothesies and reveal that body-mass fluctuations are associated to a greater extent with photoperiod than with temperature.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".