Mink with Divergent Activity Levels have Divergent Reproductive Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Stable individual differences in activity levels within populations have been linked to differences in reproductive rate or parental care in several species, including American mink (Neovison vison). Fur‐farmed mink are good models for studying such effects because they yield large sample sizes and readily allow investigations into maternal behaviour, reproductive success, offspring performance and the relationships between these factors. On farms, very inactive individuals generally have smaller litters, and this held true in our study populations. We tested two competing hypotheses to explain this: (1) inactive individuals are failing to cope with a challenging environment and experiencing chronic stress and/or depression‐like ‘apathy’; this predicts female‐skewed litters, poorer maternal care, higher infant mortality and poorer infant growth and (2) inactive individuals do not have reduced fitness but instead employ an alternative adaptive reproductive strategy, trading off offspring quantity for quality; this predicts enhanced maternal care, reduced infant mortality and enhanced infant growth. Inactive females’ kits, especially their sons, grew faster than active females’, even after statistically controlling for litter size; and by 21 d, inactive and active dams’ litters no longer differed in total biomass, despite the former’s smaller litter sizes. In kit retrieval tests, inactive females were faster than active dams to reach their sons (as well as more likely to contact their sons than their daughters: a bias towards male kits not evident in the active dams). Furthermore, kit growth rates and dam latencies to touch them co‐varied, suggesting the existence of consistent differences in maternal style across inactive and active dams. Hypothesis 2 was thus supported: inactive females favour offspring quality over quantity, investing more resources in fewer kits, particularly males. This potentially boosts their sons’ adult fitness. More broadly for laboratory‐based studies, possible ‘captivity effects’ on the fitness correlates of activity and other personality traits are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".