Testing the abundant centre hypothesis in a seabird: higher energy expenditure at the wintering range centre does not reduce reproductive success
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding variation in animal distributions is a central and challenging question in ecology that has become particularly critical in the context of global environmental changes. While distributions are often studied for resident or breeding species, species range limits are equally important for migratory species in winter when population regulation may occur due to limited resources in the non‐breeding season. A central hypothesis in several theories is that the density, fitness and performance of individuals decrease towards the edge of the range as organisms become maladapted when approaching the limit of their environmental tolerance (‘abundant centre hypothesis'). Energy is a critical resource, especially in winter when environmental conditions deteriorate, and this hypothesis predicts that high energy expenditure (low performance) at the range limit would lead to rapidly dwindling body mass and reduced fitness. We investigated this hypothesis in an Arctic‐breeding seabird wintering in the North Atlantic, the black‐legged kittiwake Rissa tridactyla . From 2008 to 2019, we tracked 117 adult kittiwakes (n = 176 tracks) with geolocation devices and saltwater immersion sensors to estimate the migratory strategies, time–activity budget and energy expenditure of individuals during winter, and estimated their reproductive success after their return to the colony during summer. Population density was indeed higher towards the centre of the range. However, contrary to the predictions, the energy expenditure of individuals was higher at the centre of the range and decreased towards the edge. In contrast, there were no spatial differences in the reproductive success of individuals wintering at the centre versus at the edge of their range. We conclude that performance and fitness did not increase towards the centre of the wintering range, implying that although resource acquisition was likely higher at the abundant centre, energy expenditure was also higher, so that individual fitness was constant across the winter range.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".