Integrative multimodal graph convolutional models for predictive short-form video recommendations.

Parents often care for their offspring to buffer the otherwise detrimental effects of environmental stressors on the fitness of their offspring (Clutton‐Brock, ; Royle et al., ). In some species, male and female parents cooperate to care for their shared young (Lessells & McNamara, ). Known as biparental care, this form of cooperation is favoured when two parents can increase the fitness of their offspring beyond what a single parent could achieve, and when each parent gains a benefit from assisting its partner that outweighs its costs in terms of reduced opportunities to remate with a different partner should it desert the young (Maynard Smith, ). Biparental care is often plastic, whereby each parent adjusts its contribution towards care based on its own condition, its partner's contribution or condition (Pilakouta et al., ), as well as environmental conditions, such as the presence of predators and food availability (Royle et al., ). Such plasticity is essential as it allows each parent to alter its level of care to match the specific circumstances that determine its benefits and costs of care. Furthermore, such plasticity provides some degree of redundancy should one parent die or be injured. For instance, in long‐lived monogamous Cape gannets (), when the flying ability of one parent is impaired, its partner compensates with greater nest attendance and increased foraging frequency (Bijleveld & Mullers, ). In doing so, breeding success and offspring performance suffer less, as the would‐be cost of reduced allocation from one parent is partially offset by the actions of the other. Similarly, in eastern bluebirds (), the benefits of coordinated parental food provisioning, detected as improved nestling growth, are greater when there is increased intensity in interspecific competition with tree swallows () (Burdick & Siefferman, ). Thus, biparental care may serve as an important buffer against a wide range of unpredictable environmental stressors, including competition for resources (Vincze et al., ). Competition is an important environmental stressor that shapes community structure and drives natural selection through both exploitation and interference (Abrams, ; Volterra, ). In response, individuals are subject to selective pressures to adopt tactics that enhance their fitness, either by directly outcompeting rivals or by modifying their behaviour to minimise competition, thereby increasing survival and reproductive success (Emlen, ; Finke & Snyder, ). While some traits that confer competitive advantages—such as body size or weaponry—may be relatively fixed once developed, behavioural responses to competition can be flexible (Snell‐Rood, ). Rather than always allocating resources to traits that enhance competitive ability, individuals may instead adopt tactics that allow them to adjust their behaviour dynamically based on their competitive environment (Nussey et al., ). For example, spp. may shift between aggression or tolerance depending on their assessment of a competitor's competitive ability and the value of the resource under contest (Tanner & Adler, ). For interspecific competition, where conflict arises between members of different species, selection may favour cooperation among individuals within a social group, particularly breeding partners, as a means of overcoming increased competitive pressures (Oliveira & Bshary, ). Cooperation can also emerge under intraspecific competition, although interspecific interactions may uniquely shape plasticity in biparental care by imposing distinct pressures that require parents to coordinate their efforts in new ways. For instance, breeding partners may need to prioritise joint defence of offspring or adjust their division of labour in response to intruding competitors (Ratz et al., ; Zimmermann et al., ). There is good evidence that competition shapes reproductive performance in species with biparental care, such as for intra‐ and interspecific competition in spp. (Dhondt, , ). Prior research has explored the impact of competitive interactions with microbes (Arce et al., ; Biedermann & Rohlfs, ; Cotter & Kilner, ; Körner et al., ; Meunier, ; Rozen et al., ; Trumbo et al., ), or the general effect of competition on the evolution of cooperation (Costa, ; Trumbo, ; Trumbo & Fiore, ; Wilson, ). However, there is still little information on how interspecific competition influences the plasticity of male and female care in such species. Such information would help advance our understanding of the effects of interspecific competition in species with biparental care, given that the two parents must somehow coordinate their response to interspecific competition. Indeed, each parent is expected to adjust its contribution towards care in response to the threat of interspecific competition, as well as to its partner's contribution. For example, should one parent respond to greater interspecific competition by increasing its level of care, this may be matched by an incr