Sex differences in biochemical composition, energy content and allocation to reproductive effort in the brooding sea star Leptasterias polaris
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assessed sex differences in reproductive investment of the brooding sea star Leptasterias polaris (in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence, eastern Canada) by examining the biochemical composition and energetic content of the principal body components in 3 contrasting periods: just before spawning, after spawning and after brooding.The reproductive effort for a standard sea star with an underwater mass of 10 g (equivalent to 8.2 cm in radius) was similar for both sexes (15.1 kJ in males and 12.2 kJ in females).However, the sexes differed in how energy was allocated for reproduction.The energy loss due to gamete release was almost 4-fold greater for males (15.1 kJ) than females (4.1 kJ).The major reproductive expenditure in females came from maintenance costs during the prolonged brooding period (8.1 kJ).For the body wall and stomach, lipid, protein and energy contents were similar for males and females over the spawning and brooding periods.The ratio of males to females in the population was 1:1 in smaller size classes but was about 2:1 for individuals measuring >11 cm in radius.This is possibly explained by slower somatic growth of females due to the repeated use of energetic reserves and lack of feeding during the 5 to 6 mo brooding period.The replenishment of body wall carbohydrates in males during the winter (not observed in females) suggests that males feed during this period.
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 | 0.001 | 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".