MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Behavioural trade‐offs between growth and mortality explain evolution of submaximal growth rates

2006· article· en· W1484404377 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter A. Biro, Mark V. Abrahams, John R. Post, Eric A. Parkinson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Ecology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFreshwater Fisheries Society of British Columbia
KeywordsPredationForagingTroutBiologyTrade-offEcologyRainbow troutGrowth rateFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1. The importance of body size and growth rate in ecological interactions is widely recognized, and both are frequently used as surrogates for fitness. However, if there are significant costs associated with rapid growth rates then its fitness benefits may be questioned. 2. In replicated whole-lake experiments, we show that a domestic strain of rainbow trout (artificially selected for maximum intrinsic growth rate) use productive but risky habitats more than wild trout. Consequently, domestic trout grow faster in all situations, experience greater survival in the absence of predators, but have lower survival in the presence of predators. Therefore, rapid growth rates are selected against due to increased foraging effort (or conversely, lower antipredator behaviour) that increases vulnerability to predators. In other words, there is a behaviourally mediated trade-off between growth and mortality rates. 3. Whereas rapid growth is beneficial in many ecological interactions, our results show the mortality costs of achieving it are large in the presence of predators, which can help explain the absence of an average phenotype with maximized growth rates in nature.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations237
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal EcologySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207