Influence of predation risk on recruitment and litter intervals in common voles (<i>Microtus</i> <i>arvalis</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on mammals and birds has shown that predation may have indirect effects on prey reproduction. Some of the indirect effects may give prey an adaptive advantage. Females of several vole species respond to the presence of predators from the genus Mustela L., 1758 with suppressed breeding; this response increases females’ chances of survival. However, breeding suppression is observed only in a certain part of the female population; it is unclear whether predation risk affects the remaining females. We investigated this in a capture–mark–recapture experiment on reproductive effort of female common voles (Microtus arvalis (Pallas, 1778)) facing simulated presence of mustelid predators. We measured two parameters: the number of recruits per litter and the litter interval. Compared with control populations, the number of recruits per litter was not affected, but the litter interval was longer in females facing mustelid risk of predation. This indicates that predation risk affects females in a more complex way than originally proposed: it induces breeding suppression in some, but also influences litter frequency in others. Our result suggests that predatory stress deregulates the estrous cycle. Decreased frequency of litters can be a viable antipredatory adaptation in iteroparous organisms.
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 | 0.000 | 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".