Morphological and Physiological Changes during Reproduction and Their Relationships to Reproductive Performance in a Capital Breeder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current reproductive effort typically comes at a cost to future reproductive value by altering somatic function (e.g., growth or self-maintenance). Furthermore, effects of reproduction often depend on both fecundity and stage of reproduction, wherein allocation of resources into additional offspring and/or stages of reproduction results in increased costs. Despite these widely accepted generalities, interindividual variation in the effects of reproduction is common-yet the proximate basis that allows some individuals to mitigate these detrimental effects is unclear. We serially measured several variables of morphology (e.g., musculature) and physiology (e.g., antioxidant defenses) in female Children's pythons (Antaresia childreni) throughout reproduction to examine how these traits change over the course of reproduction and whether certain physiological traits are associated with reduced effects of reproduction in some individuals. Reproduction in this capital breeder was associated with changes in both morphology and physiology, but only morphological changes varied with fecundity and among specific reproductive stages. During reproduction, we detected negative relationships between morphology and self-maintenance (e.g., increased muscle allocation to reproduction was related to reduced immune function). Additionally, females that allocated resources more heavily into current reproduction also did so during future reproduction, and these females assimilated resources more efficiently, experienced reduced detriments to self-maintenance (e.g., lower levels of oxidative damage and glucocorticoids) during reproduction, and produced clutches with greater hatching success. Our results suggest that interindividual variation in specific aspects of physiology (assimilation efficiency and oxidative status) may drive variation in reproductive performance.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".