MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991766692 · doi:10.1139/z03-228

Microsatellite markers reveal multiple paternity and sperm storage in the Mediterranean spur-thighed tortoise, <i>Testudo graeca</i>

2004· article· en· W1991766692 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Séverine Roques, Carmen Díaz‐Paniagua, Ana C. Andreu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurtle Biology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinisterio de Ciencia y Tecnología
KeywordsBiologyTortoiseZoologySperm competitionSpermMicrosatelliteLocus (genetics)MatingOffspringAlleleGeneticsPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The spur-thighed tortoise (Testudo graeca) is a terrestrial species in which multiple mating is frequently observed. We assessed the probability of multiple paternity in clutches (n = 15) laid by eight females, including successive clutches. Paternity was determined by microsatellite analyses at three loci. A large number of alleles per locus (n = 15–22) provided high probabilities of detecting multiple paternity, particularly at all loci combined (P = 0.989). Multiple paternity was found in 20% of the clutches in which offspring displayed more than two paternal alleles. However, this frequency may have been underestimated, given the small clutch sizes and the few loci used. Also, T. graeca is able to store sperm from single or multiple matings and can use it to fertilize subsequent clutches of eggs, as indicated by the fact that the second clutch of a captive female was sired by a different male and that clutches of another female were multiply sired by the same males. These results confirm that multiple paternity exists in T. graeca and that sperm storage in this species may be an important reproductive strategy to fertilize multiple clutches per year.

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)0.001
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 score0.267
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations34
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicTurtle Biology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207