MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Horn growth rate and longevity: implications for natural and artificial selection in thinhorn sheep (<i>Ovis dalli</i>)

2006· article· en· W1969679565 on OpenAlexaffabout
John Loehr, Jean Carey, Manfred Hoefs, Jukka Suhonen, Hannu Ylönen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evolutionary Biology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsYukon Department of Environment
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLongevityBiologyOvisOvis canadensisFrench hornNatural selectionEcologyMortality rateZoologyGrowth rateBovidaeDemographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used horn measurements from natural and hunted mortalities of male thinhorn sheep Ovis dalli from Yukon Territory, Canada, to examine the relationship between rapid growth early in life and longevity. We found that rapid growth was associated with reduced longevity for sheep aged 5 years and older for both the hunted and natural mortality data sets. The negative relationship between growth rate and longevity in hunted sheep can at least partially be explained by morphologically biased hunting regulations. The same trend was evident from natural mortalities from populations that were not hunted or underwent very limited hunting, suggesting a naturally imposed mortality cost directly or indirectly associated with rapid growth. Age and growth rate were both positively associated with horn size at death for both data sets, however of the two growth rate appeared to be a better predictor. Large horn size can be achieved both by individuals that grow horns rapidly and by those that have greater longevity, and the trade-off between growth rate and longevity could limit horn size evolution in this species. The similarity in the relationship between growth rate and longevity for hunted and natural mortalities suggests that horn growth rate should not respond to artificial selection. Our study highlights the need for the existence and study of protected populations to properly assess the impacts of selective harvesting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations32
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evolutionary BiologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207