MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4407112912 · doi:10.1242/jeb.243513

Crowded three-spined stickleback embryos are at a disadvantage

2022· article· en· W4407112912 sur OpenAlexaff
Andrea Murillo

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineAgricultural and Biological Sciences
ThématiqueAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Établissements canadiensMcMaster University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSticklebackDisadvantageThree-spined sticklebackBiologyEmbryoZoologyFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>Computer scienceArtificial intelligence

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The idea that early-life conditions can have lasting effects on an individual's fitness is widely accepted. One factor that influences the condition of early-life stages in animals is the number of youngsters competing for the same resources, such as food. Ulrika Candolin and colleagues from the University of Helsinki, Finland, had previously found that an increased number of embryos in three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) nests decreases the hatching success of embryos. However, fathers can improve the embryos’ chances of hatching successfully by fanning their nests more, to give youngsters more oxygen and get rid of waste. Yet, the effects of an overcrowded nest after hatching, with an increased number of youngsters in the limited space, were unknown. To figure this out, the same team determined whether the number of embryos in three-spined stickleback nests would impact their ability to survive and grow after hatching.Candolin and colleagues caught three-spined stickleback adults in the Baltic Sea off the coast of Finland and then, when the males were ready to mate, the team coaxed the fish into building tunnel-shaped nests with algae and sand by showing them a fertile female, before allowing them to mate with one, two or four females to vary the number of eggs in each nest. Then, the team allowed the embryos to grow in the nests while their fathers cared for them until they hatched. Three days after hatching, the researchers recorded how many of the embryos hatched successfully and measured their length. The researchers also separated a group of 20 hatchlings from each nest into individual tanks to develop with the same amount of space. Four weeks later, the team measured their length and survival, to look at the impact of the number of embryos packed into a nest later in life.They found that the stickleback embryos from larger clutches, with more eggs crammed inside a nest, hatched 6 days earlier and were smaller than those from the smaller clutches that had more space while developing. The team also found that the proportion of eggs that hatched successfully was greater in the nests that were crowded with more eggs. However, 4 weeks after hatching, the youngsters from the larger clutches of eggs had caught up and there was no difference in their body length from that of youngsters that developed in smaller numbers. Unfortunately, the hatchlings from the larger clutches of eggs also had lower survival rates than those that had developed in smaller clutches, even though all the hatchlings were given the same amount of space to develop in. The lower survival rate occurred regardless of how much the fathers fanned their eggs, which meant they did not entirely neutralize the damaging effects of being raised in a higher density nest. The team suggested that this may explain why fathers eat some of their own embryos; it could be a strategy for maintaining an optimal number of youngsters in their nests to give the ones that survive the best start in life.It seems that stickleback fathers must maintain a delicate balance between the number of offspring in their nests and the youngsters’ ability to survive. However, Candolin and colleagues point out the need for more research on the mechanisms that cause embryos to be smaller when they hatch and to hatch early, in addition to the impact that this may have later in life. Most importantly, they stressed that researchers should consider the conditions in which they raise embryos when investigating the impact of early-life experiences as they grow older.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,005
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,017

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,030
Tête enseignante GPT0,282
Écart entre enseignants0,252 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Experimental Biology→Même sujetAnimal Behavior and Reproduction→Travaux en français237 207→