Changes in reproductive strategy in the ruffe during a period of establishment in a new habitat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pattern of maturation, body size and fecundity was examined in a population of ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuusL.) three times during a period of rapid growth, and eventual stabilization, following its introduction to a new habitat. When the ruffe were less common, maturing ruffe were relatively large and immature ruffe relatively small, compared with when the ruffe were abundant. Intermediate ruffe population size showed a maturation pattern intermediate between these two extremes. It is suggested that this pattern of maturation is a response of the ruffe population to changing growth opportunity induced by changing intraspecific competition. This fluctuating maturation pattern is interpreted in terms of a threshold‐dependent maturation trigger, operating on the rate of accumulation of energy and a trade‐off between somatic growth and gonad development. When the ruffe population was large, high intraspecific competition resulted in low opportunity for growth; only fish with the highest rate of food acquisition were able to mature in a given year–the investment in gonadal tissue reducing somatic growth. When the ruffe population was low, the high rate of energy acquisition in the population resulted in the triggering of maturation, even at small size, only the very smallest fish remaining immature. High growth opportunity allowed maturing fish to develop gonad and maintain somatic growth. The pattern of size related fecundity also changed over the three periods. When growth opportunity was low, size related fecundity was greater than when opportunity for growth was high. This suggests that maturing females faced with poor growth conditions compensated by increasing egg number for a given body size either by decreasing egg size or by increasing total investment in ovarian tissue.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".