Accelerating animal energetics: high dive costs in a small seabird disrupt the dynamic body acceleration–energy expenditure relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accelerometry has been widely used to estimate energy expenditure in a broad array of terrestrial and aquatic species. However, a recent reappraisal of the method showed that relationships between dynamic body acceleration (DBA) and energy expenditure weaken as the proportion of non-mechanical costs increases. Aquatic air breathing species often exemplify this pattern, as buoyancy, thermoregulation and other physiological mechanisms disproportionately affect oxygen consumption during dives. Combining biologging with the doubly labelled water method, we simultaneously recorded daily energy expenditure (DEE) and triaxial acceleration in one of the world's smallest wing-propelled breath-hold divers, the dovekie (Alle alle). These data were used to estimate the activity-specific costs of flying and diving and to test whether overall dynamic body acceleration (ODBA) is a reliable predictor of DEE in this abundant seabird. Average DEE for chick-rearing dovekies was 604±119 kJ day-1 across both sampling years. Despite recording lower stroke frequencies for diving than for flying (in line with allometric predictions for auks), dive costs were estimated to surpass flight costs in our sample of birds (flying: 7.24× basal metabolic rate, BMR; diving: 9.37× BMR). As expected, ODBA was not an effective predictor of DEE in this species. However, accelerometer-derived time budgets did accurately estimate DEE in dovekies. This work represents an empirical example of how the apparent energetic costs of buoyancy and thermoregulation limit the effectiveness of ODBA as the sole predictor of overall energy expenditure in small shallow-diving endotherms.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".