Sharing of Potential Nest Sites by Etheostoma olmstedi Males Suggests Mutual Tolerance in an Alloparental Species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When reproductive competitors tolerate or cooperate with one another, they may gain particular benefits, such as collectively guarding resources or attracting mates. Shared resources may be those essential to reproduction, such as a breeding site or nest. Using the tessellated darter, a species where males but not females compete over potential nest sites, we examined site use and sharing under controlled conditions of differing competitor density. Sharing was observed even when competitor density was low and individuals could have each occupied a potential nest site without same-sex sharing. Males were more likely to share a nest site with one other when the difference in size between them was larger rather than smaller. There was no evidence that female sharing was dependent on their relative size. Fish were generally more likely to use and share larger sites, in accordance with the greater relative surface area they offered. We discuss how one or both sharing males may potentially benefit, and how male sharing of potential nest sites could relate to female mating preferences. Tessellated darter males are known to provide alloparental care for eggs but this occurs without any social contact between the alloparent and the genetic father of the young. Thus, the suggestion that they may also share sites and maintain social contact with reproductive competitors highlights the importance of increased focus on the potential complexity of reproductive systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".