Effects of body size, habitat selection and exposure on hatchling turtle survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Iteroparous species invest little energy into annual reproduction and tend to experience low and variable survivorship in young life stages. However, juveniles with traits that increase survival will have a fitness advantage over conspecifics, and usually bigger is better for juvenile vertebrates. Understanding behavioural and morphological characteristics that increase fitness is important for our understanding of the evolution of life‐history strategies. We outfitted naturally emerging hatchlings of two species of turtles ( B landing's turtles E mydoidea blandingii and wood turtles G lyptemys insculpta ) with radio transmitters to test five hypotheses related to survival from nests to overwintering sites using logistic regression models. In contrast to the widely supported hypothesis that bigger is better for survival of juveniles, we found that smaller hatchlings of both species were more likely to survive from emergence to overwintering. In E . blandingii , hatchlings that emerged later in the year, which reduced exposure time to predators and environmental risks, and spent less time in upland open habitat, were also more likely to survive. Our results demonstrate that bigger is not always better in juvenile ectotherms. Assuming bigger is better without observations of survival can lead to erroneous conclusions related to fitness proxies and the ontogeny of body size in populations. The observed relationship between habitat selection and survival in E . blandingii indicates a direct link between behaviour (habitat selection) and fitness through mortality caused by predators and environmental stressors.
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".