Survival costs of reproduction are independent of energy costs in a seabird, the pelagic cormorant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Life‐history theory predicts that investment in reproduction should decrease survival (the ‘cost of reproduction’). It is often assumed that energy allocation drives such trade‐offs, with limited energy available for both reproduction and survival. However, the underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood, maybe because survival costs of reproduction are only apparent when resources are limited. Here, we took advantage of a natural experiment created by fluctuating environmental conditions to compare energy expenditure of a seabird, the pelagic cormorant (Phalacrocorax pelagicus), between contrasting population‐scale scenarios of survival costs of reproduction. We used multi‐state capture–recapture modelling across 16 years to identify which breeding seasons induced high survival costs (survival ratebreeders < survival ratenon/failed breeders) and we concomitantly estimated energy expenditure of chick‐rearing males using time‐energy budget models across 4 years. Daily energy expenditure (DEE) of chick‐rearing pelagic cormorants varied significantly among years. However, survival costs of reproduction were observed in only 1 year, and contrary to our expectations, variation in DEE was not associated with population‐level survival costs. Similarly, at the individual level, DEE in 1 year did not predict the probability of being observed again at the colony in following years (apparent survival). Finally, DEE was independent of brood size and brood age, but older individuals tended to expend less energy than younger ones. Given the lack of an apparent energetic ‘cost of reproduction’, lower DEE in older birds could be due to improved efficiency rather than avoidance of costs in old birds. Although future studies should account for potential sex‐specific energetic constraints by including data on female energy expenditure, we conclude that a direct link between the rate of energy expenditure during breeding and subsequent survival is unlikely in this system.
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 | 0.001 | 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".