Evidence for a maintenance cost for birds maintaining highly flexible basal, but not summit, metabolic rates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Reversible phenotypic flexibility allows organisms to better match phenotypes to prevailing environmental conditions and may produce fitness benefits. Costs and constraints of phenotypic flexibility may limit the capacity for flexible responses but are not well understood nor documented. Costs could include expenses associated with maintaining the flexible system or with generating the flexible response. One potential cost of maintaining a flexible system is an energetic cost reflected in the basal metabolic rate (BMR), with elevated BMR in individuals with more flexible metabolic responses. We accessed data from thermal acclimation studies of birds where BMR and/or Msum(maximum cold-induced metabolic rate) were measured before and after acclimation, as a measure of metabolic flexibility, to test the hypothesis that flexibility in BMR (ΔBMR), Msum(ΔMsum), or metabolic scope (Msum − BMR; ΔScope) is positively correlated with BMR. When temperature treatments lasted at least three weeks, three of six species showed significant positive correlations between ΔBMR and BMR, one species showed a significant negative correlation, and two species showed no significant correlation. ΔMsumand BMR were not significantly correlated for any species and ΔScope and BMR were significantly positively correlated for only one species. These data suggest that support costs exist for maintaining high BMR flexibility for some bird species, but high flexibility in Msumor metabolic scope does not generally incur elevated maintenance costs.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".