Time-energy budgets outperform dynamic body acceleration in predicting daily energy expenditure in kittiwakes, and estimate a very low cost of gliding flight relative to flapping flight
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Energy is a common currency for any living organism, yet estimating energy expenditure in wild animals is challenging. Accelerometers are commonly used to estimate energy expenditure, via a dynamic body acceleration (DBA) or time-energy budget approach. The DBA approach estimates energy expenditure directly from acceleration but may lead to erroneous estimates during inactivity when acceleration is zero but energy expenditure is not. The time-energy budget approach uses accelerometers and other data streams to assign a behaviour to each time step, and then calculates energy expenditure based on activity-specific metabolic rates assigned to each behaviour. Here, we used GPS-accelerometry in breeding black-legged kittiwakes (Rissa tridactyla, n=80) to calculate DBA and time-energy budgets derived from simple biologging metrics (speed, wingbeat frequency, GPS position). We then compared these two approaches with estimates of energy expenditure from doubly labelled water (DLW). Energy expenditure estimated from DLW correlated with DBA, but the best model to estimate energy expenditure was based on time-energy budgets. Energetic costs of flapping flight were higher than all other kittiwake behaviours (5.54×basal metabolic rate, BMR). Energetic costs of gliding flight (0.80×BMR) were the lowest of all behaviours, and equivalent to the cost of resting at the colony. DEE for our birds estimated from our calibration coefficients was similar to DEE for our birds estimated with the model coefficient published using different methods. We conclude that once calibrated with DLW, GPS-accelerometry provides a simple method for measuring energy expenditure in wild kittiwakes based on time-energy budgets.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".