Pelagic propagule duration and developmental mode: reassessment of a fading link
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim As the main or sole motile stage of many aquatic taxa, propagules play a central role in their population dynamics, macroevolution and biogeography. The premises of studies concerned with dispersal, on issues as diverse as marine protected areas, sustainable fisheries and invasive species, commonly make simplified assumptions linking larval development mode (planktotrophic, lecithotrophic) and pelagic propagule duration ( PPD ) or pelagic larval duration. Because general empirical tests of these connections have yielded equivocal results, we critically examined the relationship between larval mode and PPD in light of regional and taxon‐specific criteria. Location Oceans world‐wide. Methods We collated data from 190 species from the phylum Echinodermata and used two‐way and one‐way ANOVA to compare PPD among larval modes, taxonomic classes, geographic regions and climate zones. We also assessed the contribution of egg size, temperature and other continuous predictors using multiple regressions and ANCOVA , and examined whether geographic range size differed among larval modes. Results Our results depart from the common assumption that planktotrophs have longer PPDs than lecithotrophs. Instead, we detected a synergistic influence of phylogeny and climate. No significant difference in PPD between planktotrophs and lecithotrophs occurred in two of the four classes and only four out of nine major ocean basins contained species with significantly different PPDs on the basis of larval mode. Species from colder climates displayed relatively constant PPDs regardless of larval mode, whereas temperate and warm‐water species displayed a clearer dichotomy. PPD did not correlate with geographic range size nor did planktotrophs and lecithotrophs exhibit significantly different range sizes. Main conclusions Our findings indicate that larval mode is not a reliable predictor of PPD across broad geographic and taxonomic scales. Instead developmental strategies may instigate shorter or longer PPDs in schemes that are influenced by evolutionary and environmental pressures.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".